The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Ground Rents Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Mr Mark Durkan: This Bill has come a long way since its introduction on 5 June 2000. While it is in many respects a technical Bill, it is, as I indicated during the Second Stage debate, nonetheless an important one. It has been thoroughly debated, both in the Assembly and without, and I reiterate my thanks to the Finance and Personnel Committee for its most thorough scrutiny of the Bill. That was a long and arduous process, involving 12 separate Committee sessions, and I place on record my thanks to all the members and former members of the Committee who contributed so effectively. In particular, I thank the Chairperson of the Committee, Francie Molloy, for his very effective work in relation to the Bill and the Deputy Chairperson, James Leslie, who, as well as taking a strong personal interest in the many issues raised, spoke to the Committee’s amendments in the Assembly last week.
The central aim of the Bill is to simplify the conveyancing process by facilitating the move from leasehold to freehold ownership of residential property.

Mr Speaker: At this stage it is simply a question of dealing with the clauses formally as there are no amendments.

Mr Mark Durkan: Points were made last week that some Members believed were outstanding. I would be happy to address these but would be more than happy with a formal process.
Clauses 1 to 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Ground Rents Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Fisheries (Amendment) Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: I am not clear that there is someone present to deal with the Further Consideration Stage of the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill. I am advised that the relevant Minister is en route. I trust that it is not becoming a traditional route of delay.

Mr Nigel Dodds: Is the First Minister or the Minister of Finance and Personnel, or anyone else, in a position to deal with this Bill, or are we going to be delayed until the Minister turns up?

Mr Speaker: If the Minister is not available, and if one of her colleagues is not in a position to move, we will have to proceed to the next item of business.

Mr Peter Robinson: Are there any amendments?

Mr Denis Haughey: In certain American state legislatures the Speaker entertains the House with a joke.

Mr Speaker: Thank you for that kind suggestion. I am concerned to ensure that the House itself does not become a joke. That is more of an issue.
I understand that we now have the Minister.

Rt Hon David Trimble: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is very helpful to find supplied through the Business Committee those nice little schedules with the estimated time that each item of business will occupy. It is helpful to Ministers and others who, obviously, have other matters to attend to, that there is an indication of when they are expected to be here. On occasions like this it would be helpful to Ministers generally if the practice were for indicated timings to be adhered to.

Mr Speaker: The First Minister is pointing up the problem. Indicative timings are given in order to be helpful. They are not actual timings. If people regard them as having substance, the problem will be that no timings can be given. On several occasions people have not been available on time.

Mr Nigel Dodds: It needs to be emphasised, as you, Mr Speaker, have done, that the indicative timings referred to by the First Minister are simply that — indicative timings. All Members have been told that if business finishes earlier than was expected, we move to the next item. Ministers should be aware of that by now. In particular, the First Minister should know, and, if not, perhaps his Chief Whip could inform him.
There was the debacle that the Deputy First Minister referred to yesterday. He had to apologise to the House. Here we have another example of the contempt with which certain Ministers treat the Assembly.

Rt Hon David Trimble: Further to my point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a pity that serious discussion was interrupted by a point of order that we all had to listen to. Handling the business of the Assembly would clearly be more difficult without indicative timings. The thrust of my point is that it would be better, from the point of view of good management, if the indicative timings had a minimum value. That is what happens at Westminster. Timings are given for the Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall. If a debate ends early they do not call the next one immediately but wait until the time that has been set for it. There would be merit in our adopting a similar procedure.

Mr Speaker: Of course, that does not apply in the case of legislation, which is what we are now engaged upon.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I was in the House. My indicative time was 11.30 am. I was in my room upstairs. At 10.35 am I got a message. I regret it if the House has been inconvenienced, but I was here and ready to — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms Brid Rodgers: My Bill is being taken almost an hour before the indicated time. I do not think anyone could say that I was negligent, for I was ready to be here at least 40 minutes before the time allocated.

Mr Speaker: It seems that there is substantial misunderstanding on the part of a number of Members, Ministers and their private offices as to indicative timings. I have instructed my office to try to assist in this matter, and a number of seminars are being held for private secretaries to explain the situation. The misunderstanding has caused disruption for Ministers and other Members. We shall try to attend to it.
Clauses 1 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Civic Forum

Rt Hon David Trimble: I beg to move the following motion:
That this Assembly agrees that the Civic Forum shall offer its views on such social, economic and cultural matters as are from time to time agreed between the Chairperson of the Forum and the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
In addition, the Civic Forum shall be invited to offer its view on specific social, economic and cultural matters where the Assembly has by motion so requested.
Several months ago, when the question of this motion and of the making of arrangements to obtain the views of the Forum was first mooted by officials, my reaction was one of surprise, as I thought that this whole procedure was somewhat otiose. However, we are obliged by the agreement and the legislation to go through this process. The Belfast Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 both provide for a direct and immediate relationship between the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Civic Forum.
The agreement states that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will, by agreement, provide administrative support for the Forum, and — and I am coming to the main point — the Northern Ireland Act 1998, in section56(1), says:
"The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly shall make arrangements for obtaining from the Forum its views on social, economic and cultural matters."
One might have thought that those arrangements could be fairly open and informal, but subsection (2) says
"The arrangements so made shall not take effect until after they have been approved by the Assembly."
A consequence of the legislation, therefore, is that in order to fulfil our statutory obligations, and for the Civic Forum to function in the way that was envisaged, it is necessary that proposed arrangements be formalised by way of a motion which must be brought before the House for its endorsement. Although this may appear to be a formality, it is in fact vital for the functioning of the Civic Forum that a motion which provides for arrangements to take the views of the Civic Forum on the matters that it is entitled to consider be passed by the House.
The Civic Forum is one of the institutions established by the Belfast Agreement, and it underpins the principle of inclusivity on which the agreement is based. In shaping the Civic Forum, we tried to give effect to that principle of inclusivity by arranging a broad membership from civic society. On 16February1999 the Assembly approved proposals set out in a report brought forward by the Deputy First Minister and me on the establishment of the Civic Forum. As proposed in that report, the Civic Forum, comprising a chairperson and 60members drawn from 10 specified sectors, has now been established.
The Forum is a unique body, and, given the range of members which has been pointed to it, there is undoubtedly a broad spectrum of views and experience that can help to inform the way in which Northern Ireland is governed. The Civic Forum will enable the Executive and the Assembly to engage in a structured, formal dialogue with important sectors of the community in the social, economic and cultural spheres. It will provide a channel for information to flow from a broad sector of civil society and for views to be expressed on social, economic and cultural matters.
The Forum has started work; it has met twice in plenary format and has identified its early objectives and work priorities. It has endorsed its vision statement. It has already given an important response to the Programme for Government, which we are considering carefully, and it has also decided to examine issues of poverty, peace building and lifelong learning. In bringing forward the motion we were conscious of the need to fulfil our legislative requirements in a way which reflected how we want to work with the Civic Forum, and for that reason we consulted with the Forum on it. The Forum is in agreement with it. Indeed, we amended our original motion to reflect the views of the Forum. It is important that the Forum should not be unduly constrained in its work, either by the Executive or by the Assembly.
The Deputy First Minister and I have always been sensitive to the need for the Forum to be an independent body which can bring independent views to the political process. For example, apart from our personal nominations, we were anxious to avoid a situation in which we were directly involved in the nomination process. While we accepted responsibility for overseeing the nominations to the Forum to ensure that fair and open procedures were adopted, the responsibility for those nominations lay with the organisations involved. I know that some parties have reservations about the motion today and that they are anxious that the Deputy First Minister and I will try, in some way, to stifle the scope of issues which the Forum itself may wish to consider, or that we will, in some way, veto the work which the Forum decides to do.
I want to assure Members today that that is certainly not our intention. Indeed, let me state without equivocation that the Deputy First Minister and I will not try to prevent the Forum from taking forward any item that it wishes to. Members may be interested to know that an earlier draft of the motion which was put to the Deputy First Minister and me for approval was more restrictive. It said that the Forum should offer its views on such social, economic and cultural matters as were referred to the chairperson by the First and Deputy First Ministers.
I regarded that as unduly restrictive. I said then, and I repeat today, that it is difficult for me to envisage our refusing to hear views on a subject defined as "social, economic or cultural." Therefore, with the agreement of the Deputy First Minister, I suggested that that sentence be recast to remove the requirement that the First and Deputy First Ministers agree the matters which the Forum can raise. We also engaged in consultation with the chairperson and members of the Forum on how the arrangements for obtaining views might better provide for a two-way flow of proposals between them and the Deputy First Minister and me.
The Civic Forum has itself approved the arrangements contained in the motion. That proposal provides for a work agenda to be jointly agreed by the chairperson of the Forum, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It is not a mechanism for a veto. It provides for dialogue and for an agreed agenda to which the Executive, the Forum and the Assembly can work in a co-ordinated way. The chairperson of the Forum also believes that it provides the best basis not only for agreeing the Forum’s priorities but also for resourcing its work. Clearly, resourcing will relate to the work programme itself.
Of course, the Assembly will also want to develop its relationship with the Forum, to avail of its experience on social, economic and cultural matters. The terms of this part of the motion explicitly reflect the views of Forum members, who were understandably concerned that the requirement to take on work from the Assembly could overstretch the Forum’s resources and prevent its developing a coherent work programme. The motion therefore allows the Forum discretion about the issues remitted by the Assembly which it chooses to address.
In recognition of the views of the Forum, and at the request of its members, the Deputy First Minister and I have agreed that these arrangements will be reviewed at the end of the year alongside the already planned review of the Forum’s other arrangements. The review will, of course, allow for the views of the Assembly to be taken into account, and its outcome will be the subject of a report to the Assembly. In the course of developing our relationship with the Civic Forum I trust too that Members of the Assembly will give thought to how that review should be conducted.
We have also been considering ways in which the Forum can become more involved in providing views to Ministers and Departments. One proposal is for the Forum to be advised when Departments are carrying out public consultation exercises on relevant matters. The consultation documents could then be copied to the Forum, and it would be for the Forum itself to decide to which of these to respond.
Allow me to summarise, then, the key points which I hope the Assembly will take into account when considering the motion. First, the motion has been agreed with the Forum itself. Secondly, it will preserve the independence of the Forum. Thirdly, neither the Deputy First Minister nor I has any intention of preventing the Forum from addressing any issue it wishes to address, subject of course to resource considerations. These points illustrate our determination to allow the Forum the freedom to set its agenda. The arrangements will be subject to a review at the end of the year, and I believe that they provide a sound basis on which to proceed. It is now necessary for us as an Assembly to approve the motion and allow the Forum to get to work on the social, economic and cultural matters on which its advice will be so valuable.

Mr Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment 1: In line1 delete all after "shall" and add
"consider and offer its views only on such social, economic and cultural matters as are from time to time determined by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and approved by the Assembly, or are determined by resolution of the Assembly, or are proposed by the Civic Forum and are approved by the Assembly."
The First Minister has made reference to what he described as an earlier draft of limited scope. I assume the earlier draft had his approval.

Rt Hon David Trimble: No.

Mr Peter Robinson: I am sure, even from a sedentary position, that response will be recorded in Hansard.
The earlier draft was brought to the Business Committee and put on the Order Paper. It now seems that anything that comes from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has not been cleared by the Ministers; the Business Committee, therefore, should ignore anything that has not been approved by the two Ministers.
But the First Minister is right when he says that the earlier draft was of more limited scope. The difference between the earlier draft and this one is the addendum on the Order Paper, which tilts towards the existence of the Assembly itself.
The basic question that the Assembly must consider is the nature of the body known as the Civic Forum. In this Chamber there are many opinions on what kind of body it should be. Of course, there are those of us who believe that there should not be a Civic Forum, who believe that it is a waste of time and money and who believe that the appointment of cronies of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to a body to discuss certain issues is of no real value to the Assembly. If we are to be honest with ourselves and the outside world, we should recognise that there is no shortage of advice from people who have an interest in issues that are within the purview of this Assembly.
Almost every day we receive invitations from bodies who want to give us their views to attend functions in the Long Gallery or wherever in this Building. All they need is an Assembly Member to sponsor the event, or they can even arrange a venue somewhere other than in the Building. No restrictions are applied to any group that takes an interest in social and economic matters on how they may influence the Assembly and, indeed, the Executive.
There is no need for the Civic Forum. Interested parties already know how to get their message to the Assembly and its Committees. This structured body is unnecessary and wasteful.
The second question concerns the make-up of the Civic Forum. Clearly, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have appointed a sanitised group that overwhelmingly reflects their views of society. The Forum is not representative of the community as a whole. In effect, it is made up of people who nod their heads in the direction of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. If we take advice from a body that does not represent the community as a whole, what value does it have? First, it is of limited value to have any group, and even more so to have a select group, that largely takes the view of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, having been appointed for that purpose. Indeed, one of the groups that most represents Unionism was deliberately excluded by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
I also want to deal with the body’s modus operandi. The nature of the body, if we approve the First and the Deputy First Ministers’ proposal or, even worse, if we approve the Alliance Party’s amendment, will be what the First Minister termed "an independent body". However, it is independent not only because it can give its opinion — though I have questioned that — but also because it has a life of its own.
It was never the Assembly’s intention, I hope, to create a second Chamber. We have had experiences of that in the past in Northern Ireland. When certain individuals in the first Chamber appoint a second Chamber, it becomes merely a matter of patronage. The nature of the body we are creating is important because it will have a life of its own. That was not implicit or explicit in the agreement or in the legislation. It is fairly clear in both that it would be giving opinions on matters on which it was asked to give opinions. It was not to decide for itself what it was going to consider and then give its views on to the Assembly.
That is a critical difference because of the issue of prioritising its work. If the body decides its own programme and the First Minister gives it work, or if the Committees or the Assembly give it work, which issue should take priority becomes a problem. Even worse than that, I suspect, the Civic Forum could decide that the First Minister’s or the Assembly’s issues were less important than the ones it was dealing with and, consequently, offer its views on its chosen matters. We need to be very careful that the body being created does what the Assembly wants it to do and nothing else. The basis of our amendment is that the Assembly should have control over the body. The body should only consider those matters referred to it by the Assembly.
Under the First Minister’s proposals a conflict is created. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, along with the Civic Forum chairperson, can decide the matters on which the Civic Forum can offer its views. The Assembly can do likewise. I imagine that many Members will have important issues — perhaps in their constituencies, or else general ones. I suspect that they will put forward suggestions about matters that are of some public interest and that the Assembly may feel it necessary to approve such suggestions. A workload will build up. The conflict is already there, with the Assembly on one hand and the First Minister on the other, both pumping in work to the Civic Forum. The Civic Forum is not excluded from making decisions about its own workload also.
Under the amendment that I have moved, the Assembly would be in control. The First Minister may have ideas. He can bring them to the Assembly, and the Assembly will determine whether they are referred to the Civic Forum. The Civic Forum may have views on what it should be discussing, but those will need Assembly approval. Likewise, any Member who has a view can also bring it to the Assembly for approval. In that way we will have some order in the proceedings, and the Assembly can prioritise the work that the Civic Forum should have. I can think of nothing worse than a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister appointing their cronies to a civic forum and then determining what those cronies discuss.
Of course, the First Minister says that attempting to direct and control this body is the last thing on his mind. The reality is that if he is going to be the one providing it with its workload, clearly he is not going to go out of his way to give it issues to deal with that might embarrass him or cause him difficulty. That is why the control of the Assembly is essential in these matters. It is not good practice to have two different masters, as proposed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
The Alliance Party’s proposal is even worse. It is saying that a Committee can produce work for the Civic Forum, as can the Assembly, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Forum itself. The only way this can be properly ordered is for the Assembly to have overall control of the content of the items the Forum can consider and offer its views on and, indeed, of the priority those matters are given.
I hope I have raised issues that have not been decided by the Whips beforehand and that there will be some degree of open-mindedness by Members in determining how the procedures will operate in practice. What is being offered by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is open to future conflict between the Assembly and the Civic Forum, between themselves and the Assembly and, I suspect, between the Civic Forum and themselves at a later stage as well. What my amendment proposes will ensure that the Civic Forum gives its views only on matters approved by the Assembly by one of three separate routes. Each would have equal weight and validity, and give the Assembly its proper role. It should be accountable for any body set up under it.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Mr David Ford: I beg to move amendment 2. In paragraph2, line 2, after "Assembly" insert
"or any of its Committees"
and at end add
"The Civic Forum may also offer its view on any social, economic and cultural matters where it so resolves."
The motion from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is welcome, and it would be more welcome if it had been slightly fuller and somewhat earlier. I have no difficulty in commending the motion to the House, although I would go further and recommend the second amendment, which would considerably strengthen it. The First Minister referred to some of the issues, and perhaps we will hear more from him and his Colleagues during the course of the debate.
The amendment stands in the name of Jane Morrice and myself. For the benefit of those who do not know, Jane Morrice is a member of the Women’s Coalition and not of the Alliance Party. I am sure she would wish to share the opprobrium being heaped upon the Alliance Party by Peter Robinson in proposing the first amendment. In this corner of the Chamber, at least, we believe that the Civic Forum is important and has a significant role. Our two parties have been firm supporters of that separate and independent role for the Civic Forum. We wish to see it implemented to the full, and that is why we put forward the amendment.
The arrangements being made for the Civic Forum flow from the agreement and the requirement to try to institute new arrangements which are fully inclusive across this society. As a Member of this Assembly, I make no apology for saying that a democratically elected body must have primacy. Indeed, in the case of legislation it is clear that we have the exclusive right. However, I do not believe that we are the fount of all wisdom in this society. There are other people in this community who have positive and useful ideas to put forward to us, whether informally, as has been suggested, or formally.
The formal mechanism for that is the Civic Forum. It brings civic society, in all its strengths, into the structures of government, and that will be a major benefit to us. A different perspective from those of us who are democratically elected will also be a benefit. It will enable us to view things in a wider way and look at different possibilities.
I would like to look at some of the comments that have been made over the last year or so. The Civic Forum, after its meeting of 6 December 2000, highlighted that one of its eight functions was
"to make a distinctive and challenging contributions to social, economic, cultural and environmental matters affecting Northern Ireland."
I do not believe that it can be distinctive and challenging if it has to be hidebound in the way it operates. In January 1999 the initial report by the Civic Forum study group to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, suggested that
"the Civic Forum should respond to policy issues being addressed by the Assembly but might also consider social, economic and cultural issues on its own initiative."
That was a clear follow-through from the number of submissions made to it.
The Belfast Trades Union Council stated:
"The Forum will, of its own initiative, debate and consider issues and come to its own conclusions".
On the other side of the economic divide, the CBI suggested:
"A pro-active role is needed for the Civic Forum — it should not be just consultative".
This is a clear indication of the kinds of views that are coming in, despite whatever differences those two groups may have. The opportunity they see is that the Forum could take its own initiative, and therefore be more beneficial to the structures of society.
Other comments have been made in the same way. Some of the groups which have rather smaller representation clearly see it as important. The Northern Ireland Council on Ethnic Minorities stated:
"The Forum has the ability to initiate its own investigations and reports, as well as commenting."
NICVA, representing a broad range of community activity, said:
"The understanding of voluntary and community groups is that as a consultative mechanism, the Civic Forum would be able to place issues on the agenda and to offer its reflection, experience and knowledge."
That is what we need from the Civic Forum — not something too hidebound within the Assembly structures or at the beck and call of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Indeed, they have commented on 25 September 2000. The Deputy First Minister said in this Chamber:
"The Civic Forum has to be different. It has to have its own mind and it has to bring an independent view to the political process. I hope it will."
On the same day, the First Minister said:
"There is a clear responsibility on us to make arrangements for obtaining the Forum’s views on a number of matters. Those arrangements could take several forms — they do not have to be exhaustive. It does not necessarily follow that the arrangements made to enable the Assembly to take the views of the Forum are exhaustive of what the Forum does."
That is our view, and it does not seem to quite come through in the motion as proposed, although, in proposing it, the First Minister has gone some way to address our concerns, specifically in the way he highlighted the term "independence". That is something that we would see as very necessary. I hope he can amplify on that a little bit more, later in the debate.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I just wish to repeat to the Member what I said in proposing the motion. I said that I found it very difficult to envisage circumstances in which we would not want to hear the Forum’s views on any matter coming within its remit on social, economic and cultural matters.
The motion is in its present form because of the need to have a degree of co-ordination and a programme. The programme itself will have resource implications, and we have to be concerned about that.
I want to make the point that the motion, in its current form, after consultation with the Forum, and with the agreement of the Forum, is the motion that the Forum wants. We brought forward the motion that it wants. I suggest to the Member that this Assembly perhaps should be cautious before imposing upon the Forum a motion that it does not want.

Mr David Ford: I take the First Minister’s comments with some interest. I am not sure whether the Civic Forum was actually consulted as to whether it wanted wider powers or whether it merely wished to be offered something narrower, which it had accepted gratefully. Perhaps — and it seems on this occasion we do at least have the presence of the First Minister — when he makes his winding-up speech he will be able to tell us whether he accepts that the thrust of our amendment is actually contained in the remarks that he made at the beginning, has made just now and, it is to be hoped, will make again later.
Is he going to tell the House clearly and simply that, although not explicit in the motion, the wide-ranging powers of the Forum to take its own initiative are what he and the Deputy First Minister envisage for it? That is something that would make a considerable difference to the way we view the motion as it currently stands.
I will speak briefly on the other amendment. Superficially, there are some similarities between the amendments. However, anyone hearing Mr Peter Robinson’s speech will be aware that there is little agreement. They have approached it from a different direction than us. We have major concerns with any suggestions that the Civic Forum must be bound by the Assembly. The whole point of having an independent Civic Forum is that it has a degree of independence. It is slightly ironic that, while the First Minister hints about independence, the other amendment seeks to constrain the Civic Forum to what the Assembly agrees it should do.
There seems to be some concern in Mr Robinson’s proposal about the business of the Civic Forum and what might be thrown at it. To some extent, our Committees are similar — a variety of responsibilities are thrown at them. They have clear legislative responsibilities, which they cannot divert from. They can initiate inquiries on their own account and are lobbied by a number of groups from different directions. However, most of the Assembly’s Committees are managing and ordering their business fairly well. The Civic Forum will probably be as capable in ordering its business as the Assembly Committees. Given the way we ran business in the House this morning, I am unsure if we are well placed to advise others on how to run theirs.
We seek maximum independence for the Civic Forum in co-operation with the Assembly and the Executive. Our amendment will make some difference to that, although the First Minister’s comments may go some way to address those concerns. However, we do not accept the thrust of amendment 1. At this stage, we are still in favour of amendment 2.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I welcome the motion from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I welcome the fact that it was agreed with the Civic Forum. There are signs that we are slowly moving away from the fixation on constitutional matters and towards an engagement with the economic, social and cultural issues that affect everyone in the community.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The Member says that the motion was agreed by the Civic Forum. When did the Civic Forum meet to agree the motion?

Ms Carmel Hanna: I am afraid that I do not have that date. However, the First Minister indicated in his statement that there was agreement.
Given that these issues have been somewhat neglected for several years, there should be a sufficiently large agenda for the Forum to work through for many years to come. Indeed, I believe that the Forum — in response to the mood of the public — should inject some urgency into its deliberations. In order to capture the public’s imagination it should assemble and lay out its work programme. The Assembly and the wider community should not be comfortable with everything the Forum may say, and I hope its views will be challenging and innovative, for those are precisely the characteristics needed to find solutions to our problems.
In order to widen the scope of the Forum, I make a special plea that it should consider the role that Government structures and civic society here could play in fostering the concept of international development. I am aware that this is a reserved matter, but, as chairperson of the cross-party committee on international development, I would like to see some engagement with Third-World issues ultimately. I want them to be interwoven through all Government Departments in the same way as targeting social need.
We saw the recent devastation caused by the Indian earthquake, and many individuals have responded generously. However, I would like to see a response from the community as a whole. I ask the Civic Forum to take the issue on board. I will frame an appropriate motion to that end in due course. We have hard-won expertise in dealing with disasters. We have built up expertise in long-term development that could be transferred to developing countries in a mutually beneficially way.
I wish the Forum well. It is important that we hear and learn from diverse opinions.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I would like to know when the Forum met to agree the motion. We are entitled to know that.

Mr Peter Robinson: Give it to us now.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Tell us. I will sit down and let the First Minister answer. No, he does not want to answer. What is the use of bluffing the people outside the Assembly and of telling us that the Forum has agreed this resolution when the Forum did not have a meeting and did not agree this resolution? It may have been agreed with the chairperson, but it definitely was not agreed by the Forum.
People are saying that they are fighting for the rights of the Forum. If it was the right of the Forum to have a meeting and say that it agreed this resolution, why did it not have such a meeting? Does the Assembly say that the next time that the Forum tells us to agree a resolution, we have to agree it? Has this Assembly no independence? That is the key to this whole matter.
It is completely untrue for people to say that that body represents the whole of the civic community. I wonder how many sections of the community have no representation on that Forum. The people who make that claim put other people beyond the pale. What about the Loyal Orange Institution? It is a very large organisation, yet it has no representation on this Forum. It is therefore beyond the pale, because we are told by the Alliance Party that all real civic interests are on this Forum.
I know some things that happened when people were being picked for this Forum, especially in regard to the smaller church bodies in the Province. If the powers that be could have had their way, the smaller denominations would have had no representation on the Forum. Only after battling to get position were the smaller denominations given a — [Interruption].

Dr Esmond Birnie: Since the Member is unhappy with the failure, as he sees it, to have direct representation of the Orange Institution, why did his party not put down an amendment to that effect when this went through the House in mid-February 1999?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: There was no point in putting down an amendment.
Let us talk about the churches. How were the churches going to be represented on this body? How were the smaller denominations that would call themselves evangelicals going to be represented on this body? It was by the pushing of the First Minister of an evangelical minister of the Irish Presbyterian Church, whose church was already represented on the body. I am not going to discuss fully the things that I know, but at another time I will. The smaller denominations dug their heels in and told the Irish Presbyterian minister concerned — who was the nominee of the Northern Ireland Office to chair the meeting — that he would not be on the Forum representing evangelicals because the smaller denominations had the right to have a voice on that body.
Let no one tell this House that the body was established to give representation to all views. It was brought into being to ensure that there would be no views of those who were opposed to the agreement. However, it did not succeed in the one instance of the smaller denominations.
Why is the Assembly, which is the elected body, being told that it must pass this resolution because it is the resolution of the Forum? The Forum has no right to dictate to the Assembly on what it should pass or not pass. We have been told — as the First Minister told the Alliance Party — that we cannot really oppose this because it is what the Forum has asked us to do.
There was a resolution that came before the Business Committee of the House. It was withdrawn by the First Minister, according to what we were told by the Speaker of the House. It was withdrawn because the First Minister said that he did not agree with it. Where did it come from? Who provided it to be put on the Order Paper? Why was it withdrawn just before the Order Paper was printed? Those are matters that the House should be given information on. Why hide those things if all in the garden is rosy and everything is open and above board? Why is the Assembly not told the whole story?
Why was the Assembly not allowed to approve an agenda that was already approved by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister? What were they afraid of? The Assembly is an elected body, and it has the right to know what that non-elected body decides upon. There are some people who are vocal in their support of the Civic Forum, but they do not have much basis in the electoral world that would give them respectability in any other sort of meeting. Therefore, they need not say that somebody in the organisation wants this or that, when they themselves scrape into the House.
The Assembly should have authority over those who are put into positions and paid public money to advise the Assembly on any matter. Their advice should be on subjects that the Assembly seeks advice on.
The Assembly should not roam round the world as if it were a replica of another body of which I am a member — the European Parliament. That Parliament roams round the world every time it meets. Its members go here, there and yonder and pass resolutions which are unheard and unheeded. The civic body should have its agenda agreed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and not by its chairperson.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am sorry that it has taken so long to obtain the answer that the Member sought earlier in his speech. In my introduction of the motion I said that the motion was agreed at a meeting of the Civic Forum. Dr Paisley asked when that meeting had taken place. It took place at Balmoral on 20 December. The Forum discussed the Programme for Government and also discussed and agreed the motion. On the same day the Forum’s management committee too agreed the motion.
I will also look at whatever information is available to my office regarding the matter of the smaller churches to which Rev Dr Ian Paisley referred. That was not known to me, but I will make enquiries.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: It is nice to know that to get information one has to screw it out of the First Minister. Why did he not say that in his speech? He had to go and find out when the meeting occurred. I said that the Assembly was entitled to the information. It has now been told that the Forum discussed the motion at a meeting and suggested that it was proper.

Mr Peter Robinson: It is alarming that a body set up to give its views to the Assembly met in December, had a view on the way forward but did not tell the Assembly that view. It appears that the Forum whispered its view in the ear of the First Minister alone.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Stranger things will come out, when the First Minister does not know that his own office appointed the chairman of the meeting for the smaller denominations. A letter from his office went directly to them explaining the arrangements.
The First Minister had better make some enquiries about what is happening in his own office. That is obvious when he comes to the House and has to wait so long to find out about that meeting. I also want to put on record that I have my suspicions that the motion, as we have it today, came from the Civic Forum.
I will enquire of members of the Civic Forum about whether they discussed this exact motion. Why did the management committee have to discuss it if the whole Forum discussed it and said that that was what it wanted? The House needs to know the exact wording of what was given to the First Minister. Was it conveyed to him in writing? Were the words of the motion contained in that letter? That is what we are asked to believe today. I want it to be clear that when the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister approve the agenda, it will have to go to the Assembly. I want it to be clear that the Assembly, which will be advised by the Forum, should have the right to say which topics advice is required on. Will the Assembly have reports that it does not want advice on — for example, those that it has already made decisions on? The time has come for proper clarity on the matter. Why was the motion, in draft form or whatever, suddenly taken off the Order Paper, only for us to come back to it today?
Because of the way in which it was handpicked and constructed, the Civic Forum will not do a necessary job. It is weighted entirely in one way to back up a policy which puts gunmen into government and which seeks to destroy the constitution of this country.

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.
It is very illuminating to hear DrPaisley talk about a body which he has opposed from the outset. Now he tells us that he will consult with it on how it conducted its business with regard to the motion — [Interruption].
Check your own comments.
In case hon Members do not recall his words, Dr Paisley said that he would go and ask the CivicForum people —

Mr Peter Robinson: No, he did not.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr Alex Maskey: Check Hansard. It is also interesting —

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The record will clearly show that DrPaisley said that he would consult with members of the Civic Forum, not with the Civic Forum.

Mr Donovan McClelland: We will look into that point.

Mr Alex Maskey: That point of order was very interesting. In MrRobinson’s earlier remarks he said that it was never the intention to have an upper house. I think those were his words, but I am prepared to check Hansard in the morning or to be corrected by MrRobinson. He was not involved in the discussions on the Civic Forum and the Good Friday negotiations, unless perhaps he wants to acknowledge that he had some kind of proximity discussions with someone or other at the time. He is not really in a position to talk about the intentions behind the establishment of the CivicForum.
I support the motion on behalf of SinnFéin. That support is primarily based on the assurances given in the Executive and in the Chamber this morning. I oppose the amendment tabled by the Member from the DUP on the basis that the DUP has always opposed the Civic Forum. The DUP has been very consistent on that, and that is fair enough. That is its right. However, we will oppose anything that the DUP wants to do to restrict the functioning of the CivicForum, as I am sure many others will.
We oppose the amendment tabled by MrFord and MsMorrice because it is unnecessary. Members will acknowledge that the assurances given by the First Minister this morning satisfy most of their concerns.
In his comments this morning the First Minister exaggerated his embracing of the need for the Civic Forum and the kind of functions that most Members want to see.
As people have already pointed out, the original motion coming to the House — or at least going on the Order Paper — had to be withdrawn because of objections that it was clearly going to restrict the work of the Civic Forum. My party’s view is, quite simply, that the elected representatives here are ultimately responsible for legislation and for carrying out the wishes of the people who return us by way of the ballot box.
Nevertheless, we are very supportive of the need for a Civic Forum to ensure that we have a more inclusive way of doing business in our society. Therefore our very clear and fundamental view on the Civic Forum will always be on the basis that it is, and should be, an independent body. We welcome, and want to see, the Civic Forum adopting a challenging role in society as a whole.
We oppose anything that seeks to restrict the work of the Civic Forum. We are very satisfied with the assurances that we have received from our Ministers in the Executive and from the First Minister this morning. I welcome the First Minister’s comments and his assurances to Members that there will be no attempt whatsoever to restrict the work of the Civic Forum. We will not be supporting amendment 2, because Assembly Committees already have the right to invite submissions from any organisation, or individual, with a particular interest in any matter that the Committees are enquiring into.
Committees have invited views from a range of organisations, and we have also had situations where organisations and individuals have requested the opportunity to address the various Committees. After all, we are supposed to be sitting in public session quite often. Amendment 2 is unnecessary, but we are very happy to support the motion from the First and Deputy First Ministers.

Mr David Ervine: I support the amendment in the name of the Alliance Party and the Women’s Coalition. I suppose that there are those of us who have scraped — as it has been described — into the Assembly or into political life. So far as I know, most of us took either third, fourth or fifth place and most of the sixth places were actually taken by the larger parties. One could argue that some of them say that they do not want to be here, but I get the impression that they could limbo dance under the closed front door with a top hat on.
This admonishment of the small parties and the Civic Forum is all very well. I would like to define that a little. I know some members of the Civic Forum who can talk in joined-up language, and who can do joined-up writing. They can actually speak without a script. They are people who manage affairs in banks, trade unions and churches, and who make practical efforts on a day-to-day basis, thus undoubtedly proving their capacity as citizens of this society to make a contribution.
I get confused when we ask citizens to make a contribution. Very often I hear the DUP or the less inclusive democratic parties of small nature — the UUAP, the NIUP, the UKUP and all those p’s with very few conveniences — use the word "inundated". They use that word a lot. When there is an issue of concern for society they are inundated by phone calls and suggestions from concerned members of their constituency that there is something wrong. Fair enough — politicians have to listen to the people. So, when we decide that there should be a group of people who are strategically placed to feed politics from the ground up rather than from the old, tired, unworkable politics from the top down, we are told that we should not listen when we are inundated. They really cannot have it both ways.
I am terribly worried. From the wording of the DUP amendment, it seems to me that the DUP actually trusts the nefarious, evil and reprehensible First and Deputy First Ministers more than it trusts the bad and terrible Civic Forum. There would seem to be that suggestion.

Mr Peter Robinson: Why?

Mr David Ervine: Well, that is how it seems to me, but there was a suggestion that it is perfectly all right for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to direct what the Forum should do.

Mr Peter Robinson: Will the Member give way?

Mr David Ervine: No.

Mr Peter Robinson: Will the Member give way?

Mr David Ervine: Not at this moment.

Mr Peter Robinson: Will the Member give way?

Mr David Ervine: I will give way later.

Mr Peter Robinson: He has made an allegation.

Mr David Ervine: I will give way later.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Member is not giving way.

Mr David Ervine: It is my choice. I will freely give the information I have when Dr Paisley gives the stuff about the ecumenical people that he held back. However —

Ms Jane Morrice: Evangelical.

Mr David Ervine: Evangelical? Oh, sorry, perhaps he would not have wanted them on the Forum at all. Well, all those "e"s — you get mixed up. Touché.
What we are seeing from some Members is the "Tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor, rich man, poor man, beggar man" attitude. They say "Politics is my job, and don’t you be thinking of doing it. Away, and do what you do — churchman or trade unionist or whatever. Don’t be entering my regime, don’t be coming here and making any remote criticisms of what we might do or, indeed, offering us ideas on what we should do." Basically, that is what this is about. They are afraid of the dark. They are afraid of the positive attitudes that can come from those people. If someone were to be a shining light on the Civic Forum, would they be a threat?
I remember social development workers were always considered by some elements to be threats from all sides. Usually the parties with plenty of votes felt more aggrieved that community development officers existed and made some kind of commentary. One feels that we are seeking a self protection process.
On a more positive point, it was our hope and our dream and — certainly at the creation of the Civic Forum — our belief that we could have a group of people in society who might well be our alter ego in some ways. They might listen in places that we do not get to. They might develop attitudes and opinions worthwhile for us to hear. They could have fed us politics from the ground up. Not that any of us are devoid of being told by many people what is wrong on a daily basis, but it could be done in a structured, common-sense way, embracing many elements of society. I cannot, for the life of me, believe that we need to be afraid of such a concept. I think it was the Deputy First Minister, Séamus Mallon, who in a previous speech indicated that if they are going to be a crowd of nodding ducks then they are wasting their time and ours.
I value that the Civic Forum has been created because there is a paucity of civil society in relation to political affairs in Northern Ireland, especially within the community from which I emanate. There is not a civil society of great strength upon which we can rest our politics. We need to be challenged. We need to have others moving in similar fields and realms, especially on issues such as culture, economics and social affairs. It can be of no harm to this Chamber — no harm to the Executive — for those people to be developing attitudes, understanding what the people say, and moving around this country taking evidence from large numbers of people in public. What is to be afraid of there?
On another positive note, although not directly about the Civic Forum, the DUP did not want a Civic Forum, and it made that very clear. In fact, it was alluded to today. It also did not want the Northern Ireland Assembly. I suppose that you can take some comfort that if it uses the same effort to collapse the Civic Forum as it has to collapse the Assembly, then the Forum will grow to old age. That is a reality.
What we are hearing from the DUP is "Why is it not all in our hands? Why don’t we hold it all? Why don’t we control it all? Why would we allow these people?" You can hear that those people are distrusted, not because of who they are but because of who they are not. We have heard "Who they are not" referred to substantially in earlier speeches.
The people of Northern Ireland have a right to be heard. Political representatives are the natural vehicles for that, but there is a capacity for that alter ego of the Civic Forum to add to what we do, not diminish it; to benefit what we do, rather than detract from it. Those of us who are not afraid of the Civic Forum are often those who argue that it should have a broader and more sweeping capacity to stick its nose in where it wishes — within its remit, of course. The amendment that I support, in the names of David Ford and Jane Morrice, shows that.
There are parties in the Executive that will support the motion credited to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and there will be those in the Executive who will oppose it. We must talk to those who oppose it first. I have tried to address my remarks to them. Those parties in the Executive who support the motion must bear in mind the nature of opposition in this Chamber. Opposition has difficulty being heard and difficulty encouraging and engendering movement in our Government. Why do we propose that there are those outside this place who can be our alter ego? It is because we are frightened of the fiefdom — not any fiefdom that could be created by the Civic Forum, but a fiefdom that could, and just might, be created by the four large parties in this Chamber.
Those of us who want openness and the opportunity for interaction in society will support the amendment in the names of David Ford and Jane Morrice. We must stop playing games about what we want to collapse and what we do not like, and get on with business. Has it gone unnoticed that the DUP is shifting its language and its position? It is not "Collapse" any more; it is "Listen to our concerns".

Prof Monica McWilliams: It is worth remembering how the Civic Forum came to be in the first place. Its establishment has been a long process. It was useful to hear Mr Peter Robinson remind us that it initially came about as a result of the agreement. It is on record that the DUP is opposed to that agreement and everything that is in it. Its position of opposition has been on record from then on.
However, I cannot find anything that reconciles that position with the DUP’s current position: "We did not like the agreement. We did not like the legislation. In fact, we did not like the working party that was established to decide on the sectors." For the record, it is not right to call people cronies when they have voluntarily given their time to participate in social, economic and cultural decision-making in this society. Nonetheless, the DUP took that view, and now it is saying that its disagreement with the Civic Forum is not because of the agreement, the legislation, the working party or the sectors that took so much time in deciding who should go forward, but rather because some of the evangelical churches are not fully represented or the loyal institutions are not represented.
Clearly, its current position is derived from that. I always find it amusing when someone uses the words "We must be in control." In this case, that does not surprise me, given that the Member who was speaking was Mr Robinson. I am often left wondering whether he wants the Assembly to have control of the various institutions we seek to establish, or himself. It would be great if we reached the stage of trying to "empower" people, rather than "control" them.
I am, however, very heartened that the Civic Forum has now been established, and it is extremely important to remind ourselves that participatory, as well as representative, democracy is good for this country. One of the reasons for the Civic Forum was that many people felt politically homeless. As a result of the bitter constitutional difficulties we faced, they did not feel that the time had come for them to engage in the political parties that currently existed. Many of them were very active politically — with a small "p" — in their work for informal politics. It is only right that as a result of that model of conflict resolution we produced, which has become known as the Belfast Agreement or the Good Friday Agreement, those people have a voice. They will perhaps be the stabilisers of the fast speed bike that was agreed in 1998.
I also take heart from the fact that resources have been set aside for the Civic Forum. If you are not in, you will not get any money to do what you wish to do. That would have happened had the Forum not been mentioned in the agreement. We had to work extremely hard on those last nights before the agreement to protect our wording on the Civic Forum and to ensure that it made its way into legislation. I am aware that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 says, as the First Minister told us earlier:
"The arrangements so made shall not take effect until after they have been approved by the Assembly".
I am heartened that this provision relates mainly to resources. The Assembly should have a view, since the budget for the Civic Forum is initially decided by the Assembly, and it will come to the Floor. However, it is right that the Forum should be given a certain amount of independence on social, economic and cultural matters — wide ranging as they are. The two can, therefore, be reconciled.
I am heartened that the First Minister says that he has no intention of restricting the work of the Civic Forum. The motion which came before the Business Committee at an earlier stage was aimed at doing exactly that. Nonetheless, the reason I support the amendment in the name of MrFord and Ms Morrice is to take issue with something which Mr Maskey said. The original motion, put down today by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, is still restrictive. It still suggests that a motion so requested has to be placed before the Assembly. The Civic Forum’s work on the Programme for Government did not come as a result of a motion in the Assembly. By putting that motion down, therefore, the work of the Civic Forum is still restricted, whereas Mr Ford’s and Ms Morrice’s amendment further opens it.
There are several points to which I would like the First Minister to respond. I am heartened that he says that there will be a review of the Civic Forum. Anyone who is reluctant to participate in, and support the work of, the Civic Forum will have another opportunity to participate when that review takes place. A working party was formed in which Assembly Members expressed views on how the work of the Civic Forum should go forward. I will be interested to see if those who chose not to become members of that working party — the DUP was one such party —participate in the review.
The First Minister has said that this review will take place after one year. Does he refer to the establishment of the date of the Civic Forum or to this year, 2001? The Civic Forum should be able to do some of its work before that review.
I also make a plea for more effective liaison between the Civic Forum and the Assembly. I agree that if the Civic Forum had been asked for its views on this motion, perhaps there could have been better liaison between the Assembly and the Civic Forum. I would like to see more formal liaison mechanisms. However, I am heartened by the First Minister’s comments. I will support the amendment.

Mr Edwin Poots: I am speaking as a Member of the legislative Assembly and not as Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre. This motion was never presented to the Committee, so members had no opportunity to give their views on it. It is, however, good to see the Junior Minister, Mr Nesbitt, with us — [Interruption].

Mr Peter Robinson: Is the Member saying that a matter which is the responsibility of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and, by the admission of the First Minister, worthy of being put before the Civic Forum, was never put before the Committee of the Centre?

Mr Edwin Poots: Yes, I can confirm to Mr Robinson that this matter was never brought before the Committee of the Centre. Obviously, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister thought it more important to take the issue to the Civic Forum than to bring it to the public representatives who are supposed to be scrutinising that Office.
As I have said, it is good to see the Junior Minister, Mr Nesbitt, here. He is a bit like the Scarlet Pimpernel:
"We seek him here, we seek him there",
but seldom can he be found. It is good to see that he is here and looking so well. We were concerned for his well-being.
If we want to look at the basis for the Civic Forum we need to go back to the 1996 Forum elections. We had previously heard much about accountable democracy, especially from the Ulster Unionist Party. I took it that accountable democracy meant exactly that, and that it did not mean more quangos or more people who could not be called to account by the electorate. So, we had the 1996 elections which gave top-up positions for the 10 parties that achieved the highest percentage of the votes. Those top-up positions included people who were unable to be elected in the normal way. The Labour Coalition was nominated, wherever it has gone, as were the UDP, the Women’s Coalition and the PUP. We know that the Women’s Coalition has been detrimental to the community. Then we had talks and negotiations — [Interruption].

Prof Monica McWilliams: That will get us more votes.

Mr Edwin Poots: Yes, there might be another 10 votes for the Women’s Coalition.
During the talks process a number of these parties realised that in a normal election they would not be returned, so they decided to introduce a fallback position, which is the Civic Forum. Mr Ervine, in his 10-minute speech — if you could call it a speech; it was more bluster and codswallop — made a lot of noise but delivered very little. He made many accusations against the DUP and its stance on the Assembly and the Civic Forum.
I will make it abundantly clear what our position is on the Assembly. The DUP has always supported a devolved Administration for Northern Ireland. However, we do not support a devolved Administration that lets terrorists into government. Those two facts will remain at the centre of our policy. We believe in devolved government, in accountable democracy and in having a situation in which people can come to their politicians at a local level where decisions can be made. We also believe that there is no place in government for people who are closely aligned to, or are apologists for, terrorist organisations. On that point Mr Ervine will fundamentally disagree with our party.
What the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister propose is less public accountability — it is a triumvirate of the two Ministers and the chairperson of the Civic Forum, who will make decisions which will not come before the Assembly. I am surprised that some of the parties want the Assembly to have less influence and want the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to exert more influence than the Assembly. For that to come from the smaller parties, which often cry about this very thing, surprises me. I ask them to reconsider their position. In this case, they should seek to give the Assembly more authority and reduce that of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. They should take the opportunity to put their money where their mouths are.
12.00
As I understand it — and perhaps this can be confirmed later — the Civic Forum has had some problems in getting quorums for its committees, a number of which have had to be cancelled. Perhaps the First Minister should have been more careful when choosing who was going to represent him. For example, look at the representation that Mr McMichael has given in his council. He never attends it. The fact that the Civic Forum is having problems getting quorums comes as no surprise, given the record of some of the individuals appointed to it. I am not sure whether Mr McMichael has attended the Civic Forum. All I know is that he certainly does not attend his council.
Yesterday we were told that it cost £75,000 to set up the Civic Forum, with £110,000 having been spent thus far on running costs — a total of £185,000. That would have paid for about 47 hip operations. That would have created more nursery places for children. That could have employed another 12 nurses. We have lots of problems and needs in our society. We have people crying out because the roads are not gritted. However, it is OK to throw £185,000 at the Civic Forum. What has it achieved so far? I am not aware of any achievement that can be accredited to it. We may be at an early stage, but it should be producing something tangible and beneficial to the community if the money is going to be spent on it. The Civic Forum is a waste of taxpayers’ money.
Politicians should be at the beck and call of the general public if they are doing their job right. Many of us in the Chamber have constituency offices. I am not sure what some others do with their office costs allowance — they seem to be able to use it up, but they do not have constituency offices. Many of us do have constituency offices in which we hear the views of the public. In my constituency, I have received a mass of letters concerning, for example, the closure of the railway between Crumlin and Knockmore. I do not need someone from the Civic Forum to tell me about the problems that will be created if Translink is to close that line. My constituents are telling me about that. I have had many letters about the transfer procedure for children from primary to secondary school. Again, I do not need the Civic Forum to tell me what my position should be on that, because my electors are telling me the position that I should be taking. The opportunity is there for them.
A cabal has been created of people who are, in general, in tow with the pro-agreement parties in Northern Ireland. There has been a little tokenism — a couple of individuals have been included who would not necessarily be supporters of the Belfast Agreement. However, by and large, we have a group of people who support the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and who will be directed by them. What we will hear from the Civic Forum is not in reality what civil society wants. We will hear in May, all being well, what civil society wants, because it will have the opportunity to come out and express its opinion at the polling booths. I am quite positive that, among the Unionist community, it will not be expressing support for the Belfast Agreement.
In talking to people on the ground, both pro-agreement and anti-agreement, I often hear people saying that we need an Assembly in Northern Ireland, irrespective of whether it is this Assembly or the sort of Assembly that we would like to see, which would not involve having terrorists in government. I have yet to hear someone — be he pro-agreement or anti-agreement — say that we need a Civic Forum. I have not once heard anyone challenge me or criticise the position that we take. I do not think that there is a demand for the Civic Forum, but it has been constituted under the terms of the Belfast Agreement, so we will have to live with it. However, the work it does should be controlled by the Assembly rather than by the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the chairperson of the Civic Forum alone.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The First Minister has stated that the proposed arrangements for the Civic Forum, as it is within the remit of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, need to be formalised. He also stated that the Civic Forum has met twice, set up its programme of work and given an important response to the Programme for Government, which we would also like to hear. The First Minister also stated that he and the Deputy First Minister have consulted with the Forum and that the arrangements which they have put in place shall be reviewed at the end of the year. He did not, however, indicate which year. He also said that the Civic Forum supported the motion, that he and the Deputy First Minister supported the independence of the Forum and that they had no intention of preventing it from addressing whatever issues it chooses.
I welcome the First Minster’s statement on the independence of the Forum. However, he did not address the relationship between the Civic Forum and any independent consultative forum that may be appointed by a North/South Ministerial Council. The motion and the amendment of Mr Ford and Ms Morrice uphold the independence of the Forum to offer its views on such matters as it chooses and on such matters as the Assembly chooses. The motion clearly defines and expands the role of the Civic Forum from its original narrow remit within the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to give it a more complementary and progressive relationship with the entire Assembly. I am sure that the Assembly will benefit from that.
Of course, this does not square with the DUP’s assertion that the Civic Forum is a second chamber. Indeed, if the DUP had discharged its obligations under the Good Friday Agreement and involved itself in the working parties set up by the Assembly to determine the role and remit of the Civic Forum, it would know that it is not a second chamber — that that was never on the agenda. Given the DUP’s involvement here, I think that one Chamber is enough.
One of the tasks of the working party was to examine the role, remit, composition and relationship between the Civic Forum and the Assembly. Sinn Féin’s proposals at that time, contained in our report to the Assembly, supported the Good Friday Agreement by stating that a consultative Civic Forum should not be limited to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister or it would become nothing more than a performing poodle. We agreed that, within the new dispensation of the agreement, the Forum should have the potential and the freedom to develop its own work programme, and the second part of the motion makes provision for that. It should also be able to set its own tasks, make its own reports and act as a bridge between the grass-roots communities and the Assembly, or "between people and politicians", as Mr Ervine eloquently put it.
We argued that this would not happen if the Civic Forum were constrained in any way. I welcome the comments by the First Minister on the independence of the Forum and the fact that a review of these arrangements will be carried out if this independence is not upheld. It is important that the Assembly establish the parameters in which the Civic Forum shall interrelate with Ministers and Members. If the Assembly, by motion, requests the Civic Forum to offer its views on specific social, economic and cultural matters, that will be a step towards addressing the democratic deficit which has given us 50 years of Unionist misrule and 30 years of fly-by-wire British Ministers and their quangos. To Dr Ian Paisley’s comments about lack of representation, I respond "Your party did not participate."
I support the motion.

Ms Jane Morrice: I would like to explain why Mr Ford and I proposed this amendment. Mr Ford has explained it in great detail; I want to stress again that the intention behind the amendment is to ensure the independence of the Civic Forum. I am very pleased to hear Mr Ervine, Mrs Nelis, Mr Maskey and others mentioning the importance, in principle, of the independence of the Civic Forum.
We must make sure that this independence is never compromised. In spite of what has been said on the Floor this morning, the value of the Civic Forum lies in its power to put forward a non-party political position. As such, that opinion is and should be hugely valued by the Assembly, in spite of what Members of the DUP will say.
We have said that the Civic Forum will act as a support for the work of the Assembly, its Committees and the Executive. This is a positive thing. The Forum will provide hands-on or grass-roots expertise and experience of many different sectors. It will be an effective and expert support service for the Assembly on the development of legislation, administration and policy.
Many contributors have said that this body adds value. That is exactly what I believe it does. As Members know very well, the Women’s Coalition pushed to get the Civic Forum created by having it included in the Good Friday Agreement. It is important; it is value-added; and it offers new thinking and alternative options.

Mr Peter Robinson: When the Member uses the word "pushed", she indicates that there was some resistance. Who was resisting the formation of the Civic Forum?

Ms Jane Morrice: The use of the word "pushed" is to show how enthusiastic the Women’s Coalition was to get this important issue through.
The Civic Forum should be about problem-solving and alternative thinking — I again refer to this corner — and, boy, do we need alternative thinking in Northern Ireland.
I want to refer quickly to some of the points made during this debate, starting with those made by the First Minister. I would like to quote him on his assurances that he and his Office are prepared to give independence to the Civic Forum. He said that it would be difficult to think that they would ever want to refuse to hear the views of the Civic Forum, and that means, when you turn it round, that the Forum can express its opinions on virtually whatever its members want. They have the freedom to set their agenda, and that is vital. We cannot restrict them — a point that we want to push with this amendment.
It was very enlightening of Ms Hanna to introduce the issues of Third-World development and international relations to the Floor of the House. This sort of issue is vital, and it would be worthwhile to explore whether it is possible for the Civic Forum to look at these matters, although they are reserved. I say "Why not?"
Dr Ian Paisley suggested that we talk about international matters and raised the matters of the European Parliament. He referred to the fact that the European Parliament roams around the world. I assume he was implying that roaming amounts to a waste of time. I must ask the good doctor why on earth he stands for election to the European Parliament every time one is called if he thinks that it is wasting its time roaming around the world. Why on earth does he then roam around between the seats of two Parliaments?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The European Parliament is convened on Thursdays. Members discuss all these issues, and they roam around the world. I do not roam around the world with them.

Ms Jane Morrice: I thank the Member for giving us that assurance. The European Parliament may not roam the world, but my understanding is that it moves from place to place and that Members move with it.
MrMaskey and MrsNelis said that they were satisfied with the assurances they received from the Executive. As non-Executive Members, we need those assurances on the Floor of the House and on the record.
Mr Ervine, with his references to limbo dancing, gave a colourful presentation. He and MsMcWilliams spoke about the insulting way in which members of the Civic Forum were referred to as "cronies". It is totally inappropriate to describe the people who give their time and energy to the Civic Forum in this way. Mr Ervine also spoke about the real ability of the Civic Forum to work hard for the good of this society.
As MsMcWilliams said, there is a need for greater liaison between the Assembly and the Civic Forum. I understand that the junior Minister will be winding up. I would appreciate his taking up this point. Undoubtedly, there is little interaction.
MrPoots asked what the Forum had done. It is hard to know exactly what the Forum is doing because there is no cross-fertilisation between the Civic Forum and the Assembly. Mr Poots is not in the Chamber, but I would like to assure him that the Forum is doing things. Later this month it will launch its response to the Programme for Government. It is not the kind of support that the DUP spoke about for the Executive, but the Forum will cast a critical eye over the document, and its response will be valued.

Mr Peter Robinson: An issue has been raised that goes to the very heart of the privilege of this House. Today we are debating the mechanisms by which the Civic Forum should be asked to offer its views to the Assembly. But here we have a Member telling us that the Civic Forum has already decided not only on how it will operate but also on a topic that it intends to give its views on — namely, the Programme for Government. That is a breach of the privilege of this House.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I will look into the issue and come back to you, Mr Robinson.

Ms Jane Morrice: I would like to remind Mr Robinson that the whole community was asked to comment on the Programme for Government. What is very important is the need for some formalised contact between the Assembly and the Civic Forum.
More interaction is needed, not only in the Executive but also on the Floor of the Assembly and in Committees. MrPoots talked about the need to give the Assembly more authority. I agree with that aspect of MrRobinson’s amendment. We are not just trying to give the Assembly more authority; we are trying to share that authority among the Executive, the Assembly and the Committees and to allow the Civic Forum to use its initiative. Its right to give opinions on matters it believes are of importance is necessary in order to underline its independence within its remit of the social, cultural and economic issues set out in the Good Friday Agreement.
I will conclude by saying once again that, from what we have heard, the First Minister did attempt to give us the assurances we are looking for. We would be grateful if those assurances could be underlined in the winding-up, because that is what the amendment is about. A warning was given about the First Minister’s saying that the Civic Forum has the freedom to set its agenda. I think the point he made was that it has the freedom to set its agenda, subject to resources. I would be grateful for an explanation of exactly what that means. So far we are concerned, it is important that the Civic Forum has the freedom to set its agenda, and we would like to have that clarified. We are looking forward to hearing what the junior Minister has to say.
The sitting was suspended at 12.23 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair) —

Mr Peter Robinson: This debate has raised some interesting and important matters which were not obvious at the beginning of proceedings. Two in particular need to be dealt with by those winding up on behalf of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
The first relates to a claim made by the First Minister that the motion was what the Forum wanted. He repeated that claim on several occasions during the debate. Indeed, when an SDLP Back-Bencher took it up, my party leader asked, in an intervention, how such a claim could be made as the Civic Forum had never voted on or discussed this matter. There were remarks — if they could be called that — or gestures from a sedentary position by the First Minister, which indicated that what my Colleague had said was quite inaccurate. This was followed up by an intervention from the First Minister when my Colleague spoke. The First Minister said his claim was inaccurate, that the Civic Forum had met on the issue and, not only that, he was able to give us the date — 20 December 2000 — as the record will show.
This information is inaccurate. The First Minister has misled this House, and he should be brought to the Assembly to apologise. The Civic Forum did not meet on 20 December 2000. Indeed, there have been only two meetings of the Civic Forum in plenary session. The first was in October in the Waterfront Hall, and some Assembly Members went along to see the occasion. The second was held in Cookstown, around 6 December. The motion the First Minister was waving, saying it had the approval of the Civic Forum, was never brought before that meeting. A motion was brought to that meeting for information only, but it was not discussed or voted on.
Peculiarly enough, it was the motion that the First Minister denied any responsibility for during his speech. It was the motion I referred to in my earlier comments — the one that was brought to the Business Committee, the one the First Minister said he had not approved. However, somebody in his office sent it to the Business Office and indicated that this was for the business for the following week. It was later withdrawn. Not only was it sent to the Business Office for inclusion on the Order Paper of the House; it was also sent to the Civic Forum. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that — I have the Civic Forum agenda. It has that initial motion on it, the one the First Minister said did not get his approval or, I assume, the approval of the Deputy First Minister either.
We now know that this was a motion approved of by the First Minister. It would never have been sent to the Civic Forum or the Business Office had it not got that approval. It is obvious that he wants to disown it now — for what reasons, I am sure we will discover later. The critical issue is that neither the earlier motion nor the later motion was ever brought for the approval of, or discussion by, the Civic Forum at any of its meetings.
The First Minister may have had a word in the ear of the chairperson he appointed, but the matter was certainly not subject to the approval of the Civic Forum. When he comes to this Assembly and claims that the blessing of the Civic Forum is upon his motion, he is being untrue. The Forum has never approved of the motion that he put before the Assembly today.
Even if the Civic Forum had approved it, what difference would that have made? Does the First Minister believe that because the Civic Forum says "This is how we want to deal with our business" we have to jump to accept this decision? Does he believe that, in some way, it is calling the shots? Who is running the Civic Forum? Are they running the Assembly, or is the Assembly running them? According to the First Minister, if the Civic Forum wants it, the Assembly should give it. Of course, nothing should be further from the truth.
These problems arise, I suspect, because Members do not know what the Civic Forum is doing. How could they? They should go along to the Library of the House of Commons and see how it is spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money, yet does not have even a minute of any meeting of the Civic Forum.
What was the purpose of the Civic Forum? To give its views to the Assembly. Yet we cannot even find out when it met, where it met and what it did when it met. This is a body whose single charge is to provide its views to this Assembly.

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member agree that it would, therefore, be very valuable to set up a formal procedural mechanism whereby there could be co-operation and an exchange of information between the Assembly and the Civic Forum?

Mr Peter Robinson: The Member heard my comments and views on what would be appropriate for the Civic Forum. While it is in existence, it needs to be controlled and ordered. Certainly, the mechanisms that are presently in place are quite inadequate. A body such as the Civic Forum is a complete waste of time. When one looks at the plethora of bodies and organisations in Northern Ireland that deal with Government matters one wonders how anybody in his right mind could have produced such a body.
We have representatives from Northern Ireland in the European Parliament. We have representatives, from this House and outside in Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. We have this Assembly. We have 26 local councils, 11 Government Departments, Statutory Committees and Standing Committees — probably over 20, perhaps 30, Assembly Committees of one variety or another. We have the British-Irish Council, the North/South Ministerial Council, a range of implementation bodies, sectoral meetings and a vast range of quangos. And on top of that, they want a Civic Forum. It just seems that we are a trifle over-governed — aside from the issue of the body’s size and the waste of expenditure it involves.
I see my Friend wants to say something on this matter.

Mr Robert McCartney: Does the hon Member think that there is a grave danger of Northern Ireland ending up with many more chiefs than Indians and that, soon, the membership of these august bodies will outnumber the electorate?

Mr Peter Robinson: Some people out there will be quite offended if they are not given a position on one of these bodies. They will probably be able to go to the Human Rights Commission and claim that they have been discriminated against because they are not on one of the quangos that have been set up.
That was the first serious matter that was raised, and to which I referred. The First Minister needs to apologise to the Assembly for misleading the House by indicating that he had the Civic Forum’s approval of his motion, when clearly that was not the case.
The second serious matter arose in the speech of the Member for North Down, Ms Morrice. I do not know if the claim made by the Member is accurate. However, I raised a point of order at the time, because if it is accurate, it represents a serious breach of privilege. The hon Member’s claim was that the Civic Forum was going full steam ahead to provide its views on the Programme for Government to the Assembly. That is interesting, because today the Assembly is deciding the mechanism by which the Civic Forum will be asked to provide its views. Therefore, according to the hon Member for North Down, the Civic Forum has decided that it is going to do its own thing in advance of any decision being taken by the Assembly. It has decided what it is going to look at and give its views on. That is a serious breach of privilege. It is already taking on a life of its own.
A second serious matter arises from that. When I raised the point of order, the Member, in an attempt to excuse herself or the Civic Forum, said that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister had asked the whole of society for its views on the Programme for Government. That is not, of course, the case. They asked the whole of society for its view on the draft Programme for Government, and that is a critical difference, because this Assembly — wrongly, in my view — decided to approve the Programme for Government. Therefore, according to the Member for North Down, a body which was set up to give its views to the Assembly is now second-guessing the Assembly and judging whether the Assembly has done its job properly or not. That is not the business of the Civic Forum. That matter must be clarified in order to determine whether or not the information provided by the Member to the House was correct.
Both matters — that raised by the Member for North Down and the First Minister’s inaccuracies — go to the heart of the lack of available information on what this body is doing. This is a clear indication that it is not fulfilling the one charge made to it, which was to provide its views.
I want to deal with another matter, and I am glad to see Dr Birnie in his place. Dr Birnie thought that he would provide us with some of his wisdom. In an intervention, the Member asked my Colleague Dr Paisley why he had not put down an amendment which would have allowed members of the Orange Institution to be represented on the Civic Forum. Either the Member was trying to be mischievous or he was acting in ignorance — perhaps both. Of course, there was no need to put down an amendment. The range of bodies produced in the report made allowance for Orange Order representatives to be included, because cultural interests were to be catered for —

Dr Esmond Birnie: What was the problem then?

Mr Peter Robinson: The Member will find out very quickly what my problem is.
There was no prohibition on the appointments that the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister could make. There would have been no difficulty if they had wanted to include an official representative from the Orange Institution. When the statement was eventually made, no one in the House could procedurally amend it. We have no right to decide who the members of the Civic Forum are. Only the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have that right. The Assembly’s role is to approve or disapprove. We disapproved. We voted against it, and after the event we did the right thing and put down a motion in the Assembly which criticised the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for excluding a significant section of Northern Ireland’s community.
The next comment came from a Sinn Féin/IRA representative, who seemed to think that I was not entitled to make any comment on what the intention was — either in the legislation or in the agreement — as far as the workings of the Civic Forum were concerned. I contend that I am so entitled, unless of course he is saying that the agreement sought to hide the intention behind the Civic Forum. If the agreement did not seek to hide the intention behind the Forum, then I am entitled to read the agreement and work out what the intention was. If there was no subterfuge in the intention, I am entitled to read the agreement and work out its signatories’ intention with regard to the Civic Forum. I must say that my record of working out the intentions of those who signed the Belfast Agreement is far better than the First Minister’s — as the courts have recently demonstrated.
Arising from that, the Sinn Féin/IRA representative concluded that because the Alliance Party and its close Colleagues in the Women’s Coalition had put down an amendment to include the Committees as the bodies that could give work to the Civic Forum, it was nonsense. Why was it nonsense? He said it was because the Committees had the right to get the views of individuals and groups and, therefore, the Forum was unnecessary. That goes to the heart of my argument. This Assembly has the right to get the views of anybody in civic society on any matter. And whether it has the right to or not, civic society is giving its views on all of these matters daily.
The Sinn Féin/IRA representative said that if it is coming to you, and you have the right to get it and hear it, and then all the rest is unnecessary. He is underlining the fact that the body is unnecessary because provisions are already in place for hearing the views of civic society. This is an unnecessary and costly duplication.
The next comment came from the PUP representative who read us a homily, which is not unusual. I was annoyed with him because I asked to intervene in his speech, and he refused at that point saying that he would let me intervene later, but then he sat down without doing so. I understand why he did that — his argument could not stand up. His argument was that the DUP by its amendment was showing that it had more trust in the hated First Minister and Deputy First Minister than in the Civic Forum. If he had read the amendment he would have seen that the "hated First Minister and Deputy First Minister" were being made subject to the will of the Assembly. They were being hauled back from their original motion.
The amendment was significantly different from the original motion. The original motion allowed the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to take these matters forward on their own volition. The amendment requires them to have the approval of the Assembly, in exactly the same way as the Civic Forum was required to have the approval of the Assembly if there were matters that it felt were proper to have discussed. So, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister were being dealt with in precisely the same way, and, because neither of them was trusted, it was subject to the will of the Assembly itself.
That would have been the reply had the Member for East Belfast had the grace and manners to give way to me when I sought him to do so. I do not know if his tongue was embedded firmly in his cheek when he spoke, but he suggested that there were people in this House who would see the Civic Forum as a threat. That comment caused some hilarity on this side of the House. I cannot see too many of my Colleagues shaking in their shoes at the prospect of Gary McMichael coming out of his forced retirement to take them on at the polls — or because of any other of the individuals that are there.
I will deal with his general view. He said that these are people who can make a speech without having it typed up for them, and who can do joined-up writing. Therefore, he thinks that we should get their views and that they cannot be considered to be cronies. One can have a well-educated crony. The ability to do joined-up writing does not stop people being cronies. Making speeches without having to refer to prepared manuscripts does not stop them from being cronies. None of those things are essential to someone being a crony.
The Member’s next comment concerned the anti-agreement Unionists’ position. He said that by being in the Assembly they were in some way supporting the existence of the Assembly and did not want to bring it down. Let me deal with that matter, because it seems to be of an organised type by a number of individuals, which will probably be their only defence in the run-up to an election.
In any democratic society, if one wants to democratically defeat a proposition that one finds to be anathema, there are options available. In this case the DUP considers that there are three. One option is to get the Ulster Unionist Council to live up to its manifesto commitments and ditch the deal. That is never going to happen. It is not going to happen because, at the height of the question, the Ulster Unionist Council did not take the opportunity to stop armed terrorist representatives from being in the Government. The Ulster Unionist Council voted in favour of letting them into the Government without decommissioning taking place.
The second available option is to get 60% of Unionists in the Assembly to veto the process. If that were done, the DUP would have succeeded in doing what Mr Ervine did not want it to do. The DUP tabled a motion that could have united Unionism more than anything else. The motion proposed to exclude those who were still engaged in acts of terrorism from being in government. Those people are still running guns into the country from Florida and, only a week ago, were caught in possession of loaded weapons in Cork in the Republic of Ireland. However, when the DUP brought the motion before the House, 55% of Unionists — a clear majority of Unionists in the Assembly — voted for their exclusion, but not the 60% that was required.
That leaves only the electoral annihilation option — the defeat of the First Minister and his team at the polls and the democratic defeat of the Belfast Agreement. That is the option that the DUP is choosing.

Ms Jane Morrice: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will the Member explain what relevance this has to the motion?

Mr Donovan McClelland: I was also having difficulty relating it to the motion. Mr Robinson, you are straying from the motion.

Mr Peter Robinson: This is interesting. It is a remarkable intervention. Why was it not made when the allegation was made by her Friend Mr Ervine? It seems that it is in order to have the remarks made by Mr Ervine, but it is out of order if I try to reply to them. People will read for themselves the level of consistency in that approach.
I am not sure why Monica McWilliams, the leader of the Women’s Coalition, spoke. Perhaps it was to draw attention to the parentage of the Civic Forum and to take what she might consider to be credit for its existence. However, her Colleague’s remarks show that there was no all-party desire within the negotiations for the Belfast Agreement to have a Civic Forum. In fact, I heard one Ulster Unionist describe the inclusion of the Civic Forum as something "to keep Monica quiet". On that basis, this extra tier of "government" exists only to please one of the negotiating parties to the Belfast Agreement, who did not seem to get anything else that she asked for during the process. Her contribution today was an attempt to take some ownership for it.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Does my hon Friend agree that the Forum is made up of people who wanted a place but who could not get directly elected?

Mr Peter Robinson: It is very clear, particularly in the appointment of the UDP representative, that that is the case. There are many groups and organisations represented in the Civic Forum whose views I am sure Assembly Members will be happy to hear. Those views can be heard at any time, any day of the week. There is nothing to stop any representative from the churches, trade unions or business organisations from coming to see Assembly Members, and they do so. In spite of the Civic Forum’s existence, the bodies and groups represented on the Civic Forum still come to Assembly Members and give their opinions on matters that are before the House or on those that they wish to have brought before the House. It is duplication and an unnecessary and costly element to our society.
In conclusion, I commend the amendment to the House. Nothing said during the debate will take away from the amendment’s validity. At its very heart, it requires the Assembly to determine the business that the CivicForum will consider, and its priorities, rather than have the Forum pressurised into dealing with various issues thrown at it from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the Assembly, its Committees and the Civic Forum itself. It is nonsense to do business in that way. The business should be under the control of the Assembly, the body whose views it should take into account and not question in the way that the Member for NorthDown suggests. The Civic Forum should provide its views solely to the Assembly on matters that the Assembly seeks to have its views on.

Mr Denis Haughey: Mr Deputy Speaker, I note that MrRobinson spoke for 25minutes. I trust that you will give me the same latitude.
I would like to thank the Assembly Members for their contributions to the debate — and I mean that most sincerely, as HughieGreen used to say. Even DUP Members have contributed significantly to the general mirth of the nation.
The Civic Forum is one of the key elements of the Good Friday Agreement. Therefore, it is very important that it be given a credible role to play in the process that we are engaged in. That role is one of providing independent views from a broad range of sectors in our society. It has become evident during today’s debate that some Members have sincere reservations about the motion tabled by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I want to clarify the situation and give an absolute assurance to those Members.
The First Minister made it clear in his statement this morning that arrangements for the review of the Civic Forum will be completed within the year — by 21October. That is the assurance that some Members sought. All concerns and representations will be taken into account at that stage. I will quote from the First Minister’s statement to allay the other fears over the independence of the CivicForum and its freedom to pursue its own agenda:
"Indeed, let me state without equivocation that the Deputy First Minister and I will not try to prevent the Forum from taking forward any item that it wishes to."
The First Minister went on to say:
"That proposal provides for a work agenda to be jointly agreed by the chairperson of the Forum, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It is not a mechanism for veto."
He continued
"The chairperson of the Forum also believes that it provides the best basis not only for agreeing the Forum’s priorities but also for resourcing its work."
Resourcing was raised on several occasions. The suggestion was made that the CivicForum would be limited by its resources — that is to say that it would be given a certain allowance and forced to live according to its wits on the basis of the allowance made to it. That is neither the point nor the position. The following is the wish of the CivicForum, as well as of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. If they, following discussion and consensus, agree on a set of priorities — according to the wishes of the Forum and according to the priorities as seen by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister — that will then set the agenda for finding the resources necessary to accommodate that agenda.
That is quite a different picture from the one painted by some Members this morning.
The First Minister said this morning that the chairperson of the Civic Forum had been assured that the Assembly would not stifle the work of the Forum. He accepts that, and the Civic Forum has approved these arrangements, which we believe will be beneficial to all parties. Let me quote further, just in case there is any doubt about the position. The First Minister also said — [Interruption].

Mr Peter Robinson: Nonsense. Will the Member give way?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr Denis Haughey: Is it customary for a Minister — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: I do not think that it is customary during the winding-up speech. Please continue.

Mr Peter Robinson: It is absolutely customary.

Mr Denis Haughey: I am no expert on parliamentary procedure, but I thought that when a Minister was winding up a debate — [Interruption].
Let him have his say; it will add to the mirth of the nation.

Mr Peter Robinson: I do not know whether the Member was listening when I made my remarks. I made it very clear that the First Minister had been inaccurate. The Civic Forum has never seen this motion. The Civic Forum has never voted on or discussed this motion. The Junior Minister is repeating the inaccuracies of the First Minister. Would he not like to reconsider his position?

Mr Denis Haughey: I would not like to reconsider my position at all. I will get round to that issue in a moment.
I return to quoting what the First Minister said this morning:
"First, the motion has been agreed with the Forum itself. Secondly, it will preserve the independence of the Forum. Thirdly, neither the Deputy First Minister nor I has any intention of preventing the Forum from addressing any issue it wishes to address".
I hope that those words, taken from the First Minister’s statement this morning and repeated now by me to this House, will allay the anxieties of those who have genuine concerns here and who are not out to play a party game for party advantage.
It is sad, deplorable and very regrettable to see the intelluctual decline of a hitherto fine body of men, and a woman — the DUP. It is sad indeed to see the decline of the intelluctual powers of Mr Peter Robinson — a man who was renowned for the rigour of his analysis and the vigour of his mind. Out of respect to his friends and family, who must be distressed at his present state, I will devote my time only to a number of the most obvious of the absurdities that he came out with this morning.
First, he said that the Civic Forum would be a complete waste of time and money and that there was ample opportunity for all groups in society to make their views known to the Assembly and its Members. He then went on to argue that the Orange Order had been deliberately excluded from the Civic Forum and that it ought to be included. He went on to mention other Loyal Institutions. I am no expert on the other Loyal Institutions, but I understand that they include the Apprentice Boys of Derry, the Royal Arch Purple, the Independent Orange Order and a number of other bodies. If all of these other bodies were to be included in the Civic Forum, and Dr Paisley —[Interruption].

Mr Robert McCartney: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Denis Haughey: I am not giving way any more.

Mr Donovan McClelland: It is a point of order, Mr Haughey. You are requested to give way.

Mr Robert McCartney: Is it in order for the Minister to repeat statements that are patently and clearly inaccurate, misleading and — at the risk of using unparliamentary language — untrue?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Haughey must be given the opportunity to rebut the statements that were made earlier.

Mr Denis Haughey: Mr Deputy Speaker, it is my clear recollection — and I think that Hansard will bear it out —

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. How can you say, in all saneness, that the Minister is entitled to rebut things that have been said when they were not said, as the record will make clear? Why does he not come to the real issue — this meeting of the Forum? When did it meet, and when did it give approval to this?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Dr Paisley, I do not believe the latter part of that to be a point of order. I will look at Hansard. Can we please let Mr Haughey continue.

Mr Denis Haughey: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a very clear recollection that the words "Loyal Institutions" were used. Now I am no expert on the Loyal Institutions, but I understand that they embrace the bodies that I have referred to. If all these bodies were to be included in the Civic Forum — I refer to the statement made by Dr Paisley about a number of bodies and sectors in civic society not represented in the Forum, and I think that Hansard will bear that out as well — that Dr Paisley and Mr Robinson wished, would that not double or even treble this scandalous waste of money that they complain about?
The second absurdity given voice to by Mr Robinson was that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister appointed their cronies to the Forum — that the Forum was "sanitised" by the deliberate exclusion of those whose views did not accord with those of the First and Deputy First Ministers. In fact, 54 of the 60 members of the Forum were appointed by processes devised by those sectors of society themselves, over which neither the First Minister nor the Deputy First Minister sought, had, were given or wanted any influence whatsoever. They were appointed independently. If it should be the case that those members of the Civic Forum broadly reflect the views of civic society — more than 70% of whom are in favour of the agreement — then DUP members will simply have to live with that, as they do generally in the community at large.
However, it seems strange to me that Mr Robinson, having claimed that this body was appointed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and consisted largely of their cronies, then went on to complain that it would be far too independent and that it could not be given any freedom to look at issues that it might wish to look at because it might be far too independent. One must deplore and regret the decline of the powers of Mr Robinson, but that is a matter for his party and his associates to deal with.
Let me move to a finely crafted and intellectually compelling address to the House by my Colleague and Friend Carmel Hanna, who suggested that the Forum might be enhanced by an ability to look at Third-World issues and regretted that perhaps, under present arrangements, it might not be as outward looking as it should be. May I suggest to Ms Hanna, and the House, that in addressing European issues the European Union takes a close interest in Third-World issues such as aid and assistance and that those might well fall within the competence of the Forum to address.
I turn now to the issue that has given rise to the most hue and cry from DUP Members: when this issue was looked at by the Civic Forum. The First Minister assured the House that the Civic Forum addressed this issue on 20 December at Balmoral. Mr Robinson is perhaps technically correct in that it was not — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr Denis Haughey: Mr Peter Robinson used the terms "grace" and "manners" when talking about the intervention of the First Minister earlier. Of course, grace, manners, good humour, tolerance and open-mindedness are so characteristic of the DUP that one understands entirely Mr Robinson’s point of view. With regard to this uncharacteristic guffawing and bellowing, one has to wonder just how deep it goes — [Interruption].

Rev William McCrea: The more you say, the better.

Mr Denis Haughey: The venue was Balmoral. The date was 20 December. It was not a plenary meeting of the Civic Forum. All members of the Civic Forum were invited to the meeting. It was a very full meeting of the Civic Forum, and all members of the Civic Forum had an opportunity to look at the issue. This fact totally destroys the argument made by the DUP.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the veracity of the First Minister — a spokesman of the House — is such an important issue, perhaps he will now tell us what the motion before this non-plenary meeting was.

Mr Donovan McClelland: That is not a point of order.

Mr Denis Haughey: The point-of-order system is being abused because these people do not wish to listen to — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Rev William McCrea: Are you embarrassed? Do you want to be?

Mr Denis Haughey: Embarrassed? Does Dr McCrea understand the meaning of the word "embarrassed"? I doubt it. I hope that the time consideration will make allowances for all of this codology.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you inform the House how long this debate can go on? Please inform the Minister.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Again, Dr Paisley, that is not a point of order. The debate will go on until 4.00 pm.

Rev William McCrea: Go on. The more you say, the better.

Mr Denis Haughey: That is something that I could not say for you, Dr McCrea. If you had kept your mouth shut, this country would be a safer place.
The First Minister commented on a number of the drafts of the motion that were prepared by officials. He considered some of these earlier drafts to be too restrictive in terms of the freedom that would be allowed to the Civic Forum. The original motion — which was submitted to the Business Committee — was a draft which had not yet been considered by the Executive. The Business Committee was aware of that. On foot of the discussion at the Executive, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agreed to consult the Civic Forum on the motion before tabling it. The proposed motion was, therefore, withdrawn.
The motion was amended at the suggestion of the Civic Forum. The reason for this was that the second paragraph of the motion was regarded as being too restrictive or uncomfortable for it. It was concerned at the potential for being overwhelmed with requests for consultation from the Assembly. It was decided that built into the second paragraph should be the words "shall be invited" so that the Forum could, if necessary, prioritise the requests being made. The Forum further asked for the arrangements to be reviewed, and the Executive, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister were glad to agree to that.
Peter Robinson referred to the Civic Forum as a potential second chamber. The Forum’s officials have assured us that they have no intention of trying to be a second chamber. Rather, they want to be a resource to those who are developing policy. They want to be a body with the time and space to deliberate on difficult or cross-cutting issues and to provide a view that reflects the considered response of a diverse range of interests in this community.
An allegation was made that the Forum was hand-picked by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I have already dealt with that issue. The evidence is there that processes were set up in order to ensure that the Forum would be representative of a broad range of interests in the community.
There has been a considerable misrepresentation of the situation regarding the Orange — [Interruption].
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not prepared to speak against the background of this cacophony.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I have called for order several times. Please continue, Mr Haughey. I know that it is difficult with this background noise. [Interruption]. Order.

Mr Denis Haughey: There has been considerable misrepresentation of the position vis-à-vis the Orange Order. The Orange Order was invited to be part of the consortium that nominated members to the Forum. The report agreed by the Assembly provided that the cultural traditions group of the Community Relations Council, along with major cultural organisations, should be invited to form a consortium for the purpose of nominating four individuals from the cultural sector. It was anticipated that the major cultural organisations would include the Orange Order. No applications were received from organisations directly related to the Orange Order, or from the Orange Order itself.
In a Forum of 60 members it will never be possible to represent every single interest in the community, but among the members now appointed there is undoubtedly a very broad spectrum of views and experience. A formal review of the structures and effective operation of the Forum will be carried out within one year of its becoming operational. That will provide an opportunity to reconsider the membership.
A further point made by Mr Robinson and Dr Paisley was that the Assembly should control the Forum agenda. I know that control plays a very big part in the thinking of the DUP, but not such a large part in that of other Members of this House who are properly, and in a principled way, democratic. The DUP is saying that it does not want to hear what it does not want to hear. I have to say that that is a major surprise, coming from people with the reputation for open-mindedness, tolerance and the fair consideration of all points of view that has become so justly characteristic of the Democratic Unionist Party.
David Ervine made reference to the ability of the Civic Forum to stick its nose into the affairs of the general community. That is exactly what the Forum was set up to do — to stick its nose into all kinds of affairs, and to let this Administration know the views of a wide range of interests in the general community.
Monica McWilliams said that the Forum had its origins in the agreement, and, as the First Minister said, there is no intention of attempting to fetter or circumscribe the independence of the Civic Forum in regard to the work that it chooses to undertake.
Mr Poots referred to quorums. As I understand it, the Civic Forum does not have a quorum system, and we are not aware of any Forum meeting that had to be abandoned because of the lack of a quorum. If MrPoots has any evidence or information to the contrary, perhaps he would make it available to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
Dr Paisley referred to the question of the smaller evangelical Churches. The five Church nominees were selected by a process developed by the Churches Consortium. The Churches Consortium had 12members and was chaired by an official from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It was made up of five representatives from the Irish Council of Churches, five from the Roman Catholic Church, one from a grouping of churches known as the Caleb Foundation, and one from an organisation of smaller evangelical groups known as ECONI. They agreed that the five nominations would be as follows: two from the churches associated with the Irish Council of Churches, two from the Roman Catholic Church, and one from the smaller evangelical denominations. To fill the last place, an advertisement was placed in the regional papers, so that anyone from any of the smaller evangelical churches could apply. The representative from the smaller evangelical churches on the Forum is PastorDavidMcConaghie.
The allegation has been made that the Forum is simply a fallback for people who failed to be elected to the House. Members of the Civic Forum were appointed on the basis of their experience and ability to contribute to discussions of important social, economic and cultural matters. The six appointments made by the First and the Deputy First Ministers were intended to complement the selection of the nominating bodies. Representations were made to the First and the Deputy First Ministers and any perceived gaps were filled.
If the Member who raised the issue is referring to the leader of a political party — GaryMcMichael — it was considered desirable for the UDP to be represented in the Forum by its leader. The First Minister was perfectly entitled to make that decision.
The question was raised about why the Civic Forum was to give its views on the Programme for Government before proper arrangements were in place. The drafting team for the Programme for Government had to complete its consultation by 15January2001. Arrangements for the Civic Forum were not in place by that date, and in the interim the First and Deputy First Ministers invited the Civic Forum to respond to the draft Programme for Government.
I would also point out that there have been 160 responses to requests to comment on the Programme for Government.
That covers most of the points that were made. I recognise that much of the brouhaha that came from the DUP Benches has nothing to do with the Civic Forum at all. It has more to do with the party’s ongoing search for some kind of partisan advantage. That this disfigures the business of the House on a regular basis will come as no surprise to Members.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Denis Haughey: No. I have all the information I need.
I should also refer to the further point made by Mrs Nelis in connection with the North/South consultative forum. At the last plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, in September 2000, it agreed to initiate a study on the North/South consultative forum. Progress is being made on the study, and a report will be made to the next plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, following which a statement will be made to the Assembly.
If I have missed any points — and some serious points were made here today in spite of all the brouhaha — I will search Hansard and make sure that the Members who raised them get a written reply.
In conclusion, I commend the motion to the House.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: There is still time left. I take it that Members, as in another place, can use that time.

Mr Donovan McClelland: No Member has asked to speak after the winding-up speeches. On that basis, I will put the amendment Question.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: That does not matter. In another place, they just have to stand up and can use the time.

Mr Robert McCartney: Of course, the reason no Member put his name down to speak after the closing speech of the Minister is that no one could anticipate whether the Minister would use all the time available. However, in another place, it is quite in order, if a Minister’s closing speech does not utilise the time allotted for the debate, for anyone else who wishes to speak to be allowed then to do so.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The convention in this place is different from that in another. The convention here has always been that when a Minister has finished his winding- up speech the Question is put.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister seems to think that when he is winding up he should give way to nobody. I tried to make him give way. I want to put it on the record that what I said in the House about the other churches was the truth. I know all about it. What he said was totally inaccurate.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: In fact, it was not just inaccurate — it was false.

Mr Donovan McClelland: That is not a point of order.
Question put, 
The Assembly divided: Ayes 25; Noes 59.
Ayes
Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Sammy Wilson.
Noes
Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Alex Attwood, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Eileen Bell, Esmond Birnie, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Joan Carson, Seamus Close, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, David Ervine, John Fee, David Ford, Sam Foster, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, John Kelly, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, David McClarty, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Alan McFarland, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Dermot Nesbitt, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney, Jim Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.

Mr David Ford: In view of the assurances given by the Minister I seek leave to withdraw amendment No 2. Unlike Members of the DUP — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr David Ford: Unlike Members of the DUP, Mr Deputy Speaker — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. The Member who moved the second amendment has sought leave to withdraw it. Are Members content?

Several Members: No.
Question, 
Main Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 57; Noes 28.
Ayes
Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Alex Attwood, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Eileen Bell, Esmond Birnie, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Joan Carson, Seamus Close, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, John Fee, David Ford, Sam Foster, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, John Kelly, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, David McClarty, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Alan McFarland, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Dermot Nesbitt, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney, Jim Wilson.
Noes
Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly agrees that the Civic Forum shall offer its views on such social, economic and cultural matters as are from time to time agreed between the Chairperson of the Forum and the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
In addition, the Civic Forum shall be invited to offer its view on specific social, economic and cultural matters where the Assembly has by motion so requested.

Mr Peter Robinson: I wish to raise a point of order. As it may require some sort of consideration, I will be happy to wait for a ruling.
During the course of our debate on the Civic Forum the First Minister made statements which clearly were inaccurate. They were compounded by the Junior Minister in his response. The Library does not have any minutes of Civic Forum meetings, but I have received paperwork via a member. That paperwork makes it clear that the issues which the First Minister and the junior Minister indicated had been raised, discussed and decided upon by the Civic Forum were never on its agenda and were never decided. The House has been misled. The Speaker should look into the matter and decide if flagrant disregard of accuracy is permissible for an Assembly Minister.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Obviously, I cannot respond to that immediately. Please make those papers available to the Speaker’s Office. We will examine Hansard.

Draft Financial Investigations Order

Mr Alban Maginness: I beg to move
That the report of the Ad Hoc Committee set up to consider the draft Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 referred by the Secretary of State be submitted to the Secretary of State as a report of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
As Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee I have the role of presenting the Committee’s report to the Assembly. I will declare an interest before progressing further. As a barrister, I am a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland and of the Bar of Ireland.
It might be helpful for Members if I set out some details on the workings of the Committee. The Assembly established the Ad Hoc Committee on 11 December 2000 with the remit to consider the draft Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 and to report to the Assembly. The draft Order aims to make the present legislation more effective and strengthen the measures available to deprive convicted criminals of the profits from their criminal activities.
The Committee’s first meeting was held on 19 December 2000, and we met another four times — all in public session. The Committee considered the draft Order and debated its purpose, and the changes to the legislation. As a result of extremely tight deadlines, the Committee decided to invite 16 organisations to provide written submissions. These are listed in the report provided to Members. The Committee received 11 written submissions and took oral evidence from Customs and Excise, the Northern Ireland Bankers’ Association, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the RUC and the Law Society of Northern Ireland. This was a well-balanced and good spread of organisations considering the tight deadlines the Committee faced.
For the sake of completeness, all the written submissions, the minutes of evidence and the minutes of proceedings have been included in the report. After hearing oral evidence on 8 January and 9 January, the Committee carried out an article-by-article consideration of the draft Order on 16 Janaury.
Overall, a majority on the Committee supported the draft Order and backed the drive to prevent criminals profiting from criminial activities. However, individual Committee members had concerns, particularly in relation to solicitor/client confidentiality and legal and professional privilege. These are recorded in the report.
I will deal more specifically with the individual draft articles. There are eight articles in the draft Order, and there was a general welcome for the instrument. There was no disagreement over the principle that it is right and proper to prevent criminals profiting from their unlawful activities. The Ad Hoc Committee believed that the law should be strengthened to deal more effectively with criminals who used more sophisticated means to dispose of their ill-gotten gains. That degree of increased criminal sophistication was emphasised by the RUC in its oral and written submissions to the Committee and in the evidence presented by Customs and Excise.
There was no division in the Ad Hoc Committee regarding articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 of the draft Order. However, there was division in the Committee on article 6, which deals with general solicitor circulars and which I will address at a later stage. Although there was division in the Committee and a fairly robust debate, business was conducted in a good and responsible manner by all members.
The draft Order is intended to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and aims to prevent criminals from benefiting from their criminal activities. Evidence given by the RUC and Customs and Excise indicates that the Order has been increasingly effective in achieving its aims.
Draft article 3 amends article 49 of the 1996 Order. This was generally agreed by the Committee. The draft article enables a Customs and Excise officer — the equivalent of a superintendent in the police force — to apply to a County Court for the appointment of a financial investigator to assist him. It also makes new provision for the County Court to authorise named police and Customs and Excise officers to exercise two of the powers available to financial investigators, namely the power to undertake a trawl of all financial institutions and solicitors. These are referred to as general bank and solicitor circulars.
The Committee raised no objection to article 3, which deals with the appointment of police and customs officers. However, other points of concern were raised, and the Committee made the assumption that these concerns could be addressed. However, members did emphasise that those empowered under the amended draft article should be properly trained and au fait with the code of practice governing the activities of financial investigators. The Committee noted the concerns of the Northern Ireland Bankers’ Association, which gave evidence to the Committee — and in particular, its concern about the time period for compliance with general bank circulars.
The Committee recommended that there be some mechanism whereby the code of practice can be amended to include an application for an extension of the time period for compliance in line with the views expressed by the Northern Ireland Bankers’ Association. The association’s supplementary written submission is on page 71 of the report. The final paragraph states:
"Apart from section 3.13 in the Code of Practice there is no provision for an application for an extension of time. In our submission we drew the Committee’s attention to the potential additional work which the proposed new legislation would create. The Member Banks would therefore welcome that an extension to the current 28 day period is written into the proposed new legislation. We trust that this clarifies the submission."
While the Committee understood the concern of the Northern Ireland Bankers’ Association, it did not seek to include in the legislation any provision for the extension of time for compliance with a bankers’ order. However, in ease of the Bankers’ Association and the problems that might face bankers complying with time limits, the Committee suggested that a mechanism whereby the code of practice could be amended to include an application for an extension of time for compliance should be part of the code of practice.
Draft article 4 amends article 50 of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 to provide financial investigators with the same rights of access to material under a production order as are currently available to the police. The Committee had no objection to draft article 4.
Draft article 5 amends schedule 2 to the 1996 Order. The effect would be to broaden the power of a financial investigator to require a bank to provide him with specified information. The amendment broadens the power so that such a requirement could be imposed on any person carrying on relevant financial business, as defined by the Money Laundering Regulations 1993.
That amendment broadens the area of investigation of a financial investigator to include any relevant financial institutions, and not just banks. That is a material change in the legislation. Those who submitted evidence to the Committee said that they would welcome that change and thought that it would be helpful in the fight against crime. It also broadens the range of information that the banks or financial institutions must provide. The Committee had no objection to draft article 5.
Draft article 6 enables a financial investigator, where he believes that a person has benefited from serious crime, to require a solicitor to confirm whether, during a specified period, the person was his client in respect of non-contentious business such as the purchase of land or property or the carrying out of investments, et cetera. If so, the solicitor would be required to provide certain information about his client and the nature of any transaction that was made.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)
Article 6 caused division in the Committee. However, there was a majority in favour of the draft amendment and there were various arguments on both sides. Article 6 represents the most contentious part of the draft Order. It represents a new area in which a financial investigator can investigate. He can conduct a trawl of solicitors throughout Northern Ireland in an attempt to get information on certain types of non-contentious business carried out by solicitors on behalf of people who may be involved in criminal activities.
I refer Members to the RUC’s written submission on page 77. It says
"It is the RUC’s submission that since their introduction in 1996 financial investigation powers have been used to good effect. They are used in selected cases only, following a determination that the appointment of a financial investigator could substantially enhance the investigation. An example of their assistance is the identification of 1,232 previously unknown accounts connected to those persons under investigation.
We would contend that the proposed new powers will enhance the effectiveness of the existing powers. In particular, the ability to trawl all financial institutions should prove of benefit, as will the ability to require a solicitor to confirm if a person was his client and to obtain details of transactions carried out on his/her behalf in respect of certain types of businesses."
The RUC’s submission is strongly in favour of the draft article, and the submission speaks for itself. However, I refer to page 74, paragraph (f) of the Human Rights Commission’s written submission, which states:
"Article 6, by inserting a new para.3A into Schedule 2 to the 1996 Order, provides for trawls to be made amongst solicitors for information. The Commission has concerns about this provision because it interferes with the lawyer-client relationship, which is normally sacrosanct. Even though para. 4 of Schedule 2 to the 1996 Order preserves legal professional privilege, it is not clear on present case-law authority that this would extend to justifying a solicitor not furnishing the information demanded under the new para.3A. The Commission is not persuaded that this amendment to the law is yet required, especially in view of the fact that the Government has not explained why it is required in Northern Ireland but not elsewhere in the United Kingdom and why the proposal was made without first taking the views of legal bodies in Northern Ireland as to whether there was a need for it."
That reflects the view expressed by the Human Rights Commission. I refer Members to page80 and 81, which deal with the Law Society’s written submission to the Ad Hoc Committee. At paragraph 3.4 it states:
"For example, we draw attention to the powers conferred by Article 6 of the proposed Order. From the Explanatory Document it is clear that the purpose of these provisions is to enable speculative ‘trawls’ to obtain information about transactions conducted generally by solicitors for clients. The operation of these provisions will almost certainly involve infringements of confidentiality and privacy not just of the person under investigation but of those persons with whom the person under suspicion has had legal dealings."
In the summary on page81 the society invites the Committee to consider supporting the position of the society on the following points:
"(a) to acknowledge the importance of safeguarding the public interest in the principles of solicitor-client confidentiality and legal professional privilege;
(b) having regard to the importance of those principles, to affirm that these should not be interfered with lightly, without careful consideration of other options or without the provision of effective safeguards;
(c) that any legislation on the lines proposed or, at a minimum, implementation of those provisions affecting solicitor/client confidentiality and legal professional privilege should not be brought forward pending full and meaningful consultations between the NIO and the Law Society;
(d) that if and when legislation on these matters is brought forward, it should not be by way of Order in Council;
(e) that legislation on these matters should not be applicable to Northern Ireland on a selective and experimental basis."
I think that summaries fairly the view expressed by the Law Society to the Ad Hoc Committee. I believe that it represents the views of those who found this particular article unacceptable.
Despite the disagreement that I indicated was within the Committee, the majority of members accepted draft article6 and were content with it. However, the Committee went on to say that, although it was agreed at first, there was no clear definition of what is termed "non-contentious business" in the draft Order, and it recommended that this phrase should be clearly defined.
The Committee also said that the Secretary of State should enter into full and meaningful consultations with the relevant organisations before the implementation of the draft Order, and that the code of practice for investigators should be updated. In my view, that would represent both sides of the argument and the views of the Committee as agreed.
The recommendations have been outlined in the report, which was unanimously agreed by the Committee. The recommendations are a tribute to the perseverance of Committee members. Despite the very limited time period, the Committee worked very hard and energetically to deal with all the issues conscientiously. I commend the individual members of the Committee for their assistance and, in particular, the Deputy Chairperson, MrBilly Bell.
I thank all the organisations for their written and oral evidence to the Committee. A number of the submissions and preparations for oral submission, as well as written submissions, were produced during the Christmas and new year holiday period. The organisations put a very special effort into preparation, and I thank them for that. I also thank the Assembly staff for their support and assistance throughout. In particular, I would like to thank, the Committee Clerk for his work and direction.
Finally, I invite Members to support the motion.

Mr Billy Bell: I want to thank the Member for North Belfast, MrAlbanMaginness, for chairing the Committee. It was a very difficult job, but it was one which he tackled with enthusiasm and great ability. He had the full support of other Committee members in chairing those meetings.
Before dealing with the contents of the Committee’s report, I would like to draw Members’ attention to one other issue, which I think was touched on by the Chairperson. It relates to the very tight deadline that was set for the Committee’s work. By the time the membership of the Committee was agreed, and taking into account the Christmas recess, we had only three weeks to consider this very difficult and detailed piece of legislation, hear evidence and produce a report.
That timescale was totally inadequate. It was only because of the tremendous amount of time and effort given to the task by Committee members and staff that the Chairperson was able to present the report today. It is absolutely necessary that a more realistic timescale be allocated to a Committee of this kind to enable it to carry out the task. Committee members should be commended for the efficient way in which they conducted their business. A genuine and concerted effort was made to achieve consensus. That was difficult at times but, where it was possible to achieve such consensus, that has been reflected in the report.
This is an important piece of legislation. It will redress the balance between the criminal and the law-abiding citizen. The proposed legislation will enhance the effectiveness of the powers available to Government to prevent criminals from profiting from unlawful activities, a principle that has my full support. In Northern Ireland it is especially important that we tackle the mafia-style culture that has developed. We must cut off the lifeblood that sustains criminal activities.
As Mr Maginness said, a majority on the Committee was in favour of the introduction of the Order. However, individual members had reservations about some of the details, and the Chairperson has highlighted the proposed changes to the Order that would take account of such concerns.
During the Committee’s deliberations I was concerned to ensure that the balance of the measures should be in favour of law-abiding citizens. I was also keen to ensure that we did not create any potential loopholes through which those who profit from illegal activities could escape. Of course, there were concerns about issues such as solicitor/client confidentiality, but I think that the report has addressed such issues constructively, striking the right balance between criminal and law-abiding activities. However, it was important that we should keep our eye on the main issue and make it as difficult as possible for criminals to enjoy their ill-gotten gains. We wanted to send out a clear message to that effect, and the report has achieved that objective.
I commend the report to the Assembly.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I endorse the comments of the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson on the help that was given to us as we compiled the report. The work was done at a difficult time — during the holiday period — and a great deal of effort went into arranging attendances by witnesses, supplying members with written submissions, conducting meetings and writing the report.
The Assembly staff involved in that have our thanks and congratulations, as do those who took the time over the Christmas period to get a written submission to the Committee — regardless of what we think of those submissions.
This is an important piece of legislation. The RUC — which will be one of the main organisations to benefit from the extra powers — made it quite clear that this was a necessary piece of legislation. The police need it to enhance the effectiveness of the 1996 Order. As they said — although after reading some of the submissions I began to wonder if they were right in this assessment — no good argument can be advanced as to why individuals should profit from their illegal activities. Because of the range of professional advice that is now available to criminals, it is possible for them to engage in illegal activity, to benefit from it, to hide the gains and to snub their noses at the rest of law-abiding society.
I was disappointed by the balance of the arguments and by the almost knee-jerk reaction of the usual suspects, who feel that they must rise to the defence of the criminal underdogs, as they see them, on almost every occasion. I want to address some of the Chairperson’s remarks. Anyone who listens to the news or watches what happens — not just in the inner city, though perhaps it is more evident there — will know of the sophistication that paramilitary organisations now have in laundering their ill-gotten gains, whether from protection money, racketeering, drug money, robberies or whatever else. It is not possible to deny that we must have some means of ensuring that those ill-gotten gains can be seized from those people once the illegal activity has been identified.
I live in the inner city myself, and it is evident to me that some individuals are clearly living beyond their means. They are driving cars that they could not afford on the limited income that they appear to have on the surface. In some cases they are flaunting their wealth. They appear to be local heroes because of their wealth, despite having no visible means of support. Clearly, we must have some way of dealing with that problem.
A year and a half ago a Housing Executive house three streets from mine was raided in search of drugs. The police came across £330,000 in cash. I do not know whether that was a month’s takings, a week’s takings or a lifetime’s takings, but for someone with no job to have that kind of money available to them shows the level of money that can be earned through criminal activities. It is an affront. It is all well and good for those who represent, or claim to represent, the liberal wing of society. It is all well and good for those persons from the leafy suburbs to talk about keeping the balance right — "We must protect confidentiality between solicitors and their clients." It is all well and good for them to protect the rights of those who are caught up in a web of criminal intrigue, but it is an affront to those who get up in the morning, go out and work, pay their bills and try to keep the law. It is an affront that those people who decide to engage in criminal activity can benefit from it. I therefore agree with the RUC that this legislation is required. It is the RUC which has to deal with this issue, day in and day out, and it says that it is essential. The Customs and Excise officials also told us it was essential that the powers be extended to them. We have to listen to those who deal with this problem on a regular basis.
I was disappointed by the contribution from the Chairperson of the Committee. I timed that section of his speech in which he defended the views of the Human Rights Commission and the Law Society. Its contents certainly did not reflect the views of the Committee. As far as I remember, when this issue was discussed in the Committee, there was a majority decision that these powers should be extended, in their totality, throughout the Order. One dissenting voice was heard, and that was the Chairperson’s. In his speech he gave almost a third of his time — and I timed it — to making the argument that was supported by only one person in the Committee.
I want to comment on some of the arguments he put forth. The discussion centred around the question of whether the powers of the trawl for information should be extended. I noted the Chairperson’s use of the rather weighted term "the speculative trawl for information". Should this be extended from banks to solicitors? I want to make it clear to the House that there is no mention in the legislation of a "speculative trawl". Having spoken to the police, who have been engaged in these trawls, as far as bankers have been concerned, since 1996, I am quite clear that the trawl is far from speculative.
Police officers first have to build up a case, and then they have to go to a County Court magistrate and show that they cannot progress the case further unless they have this additional information. The County Court magistrate then cross-questions them to ensure that it is absolutely necessary that they get these powers. Only then will the powers be extended to the police or, now, to the Customs and Excise officers. It is not, therefore, a speculative trawl, in which one simply throws out a net and hopes that some information will arrive. It is focused and happens only when the police or Customs and Excise officers find that their investigations cannot go any further without additional information. That is not an unreasonable power to give.
Secondly, it has been argued that this measure will shatter the very foundations of the legal system. I hope I am not over-egging the pudding — I accept that the Chairperson did not actually use that terminology — but the idea has been expressed that, somehow or other, if this power were extended, the fragile balance in the law, where confidentiality exists between a solicitor and his client, would break down, which would be to the detriment of the legal profession.
When the Law Society’s representatives appeared at the Ad Hoc Committee I asked some questions about that. It was quite enlightening. If one looks at page 47 of the report, one will see that they admitted that confidentiality between the client and the solicitor is not absolute. There were circumstances in which they would, and could be required to, disclose information. Mr Kinney said:
"My understanding is that, under the terms of the 1996 Order, if I have any suspicion regarding any transaction that comes to me in the course of my business, I have an obligation to report it."
Confidentiality is not absolute. Mr Kinney continued:
"However … where there is a clear criminal intent and no doubt about it, then it should be disclosed."
Those are two instances where confidentiality can be breached and where information would be disclosed. All that the Order is doing is going that step further. It is stating that when the police have reason to believe, and can prove to a County Court judge, that there is criminal activity going on, and they need further information to proceed in the case, then they can apply for a trawl for information relating to that situation.
A lot of play has been made about the submission made by the Human Rights Commission. I become more and more disappointed the more I hear. The ordinary person in the street begins to wonder what kind of world some of the advocates of the various human rights organisations live in. It seems that their knee-jerk reaction is to regard any extension of powers to the establishment and to the state as a bad thing.
I will give one instance. When the chairperson of the Human Rights Commission came to the Committee he talked of his concerns about the legislation. I will not discuss all of those concerns. One illustrates the point I wish to make about the knee-jerk reaction. On three occasions in the commission’s submission, the chairperson talked about the need to change the code of practice. He was asked what particular changes he would like to see. He was asked to be specific. His answer was most revealing. He pointed out that he could not be specific because he did not have a copy of the code of practice. He had not even read it, yet he was recommending changes to it.
To the ordinary person who wonders about the balance in all of this, that kind of knee-jerk reaction does not do any credit to any submission — it undermines a submission. Suffice it to say — though there are many other issues I could have raised — I believe that the vast majority of the Committee felt that not only was the legislation needed, but it should have gone far further. Some other Members may wish to take up the whole question of the Criminal Assets Bureau in the Irish Republic and the powers that it has. We did not get a chance to investigate that. I think that we were a bit worried about the response we received from the Human Rights Commission on whether the powers that the bureau might have would be allowed to stay. We will not get any thanks from the general public if we are seen in any way to wish to protect those who benefit from their ill-gotten gains, very often those ill-gotten gains having resulted in the destruction of whole neighbourhoods. We would not get any credit for wanting to water down any legislation which would then curtail the ability of the police or the authorities to recover the gains from those people. I, therefore, support the content of the Order.
The majority of the Committee supported all of the content of the Order. Despite the references which have been made to the Chairperson, in the end article6 was supported by the Committee. We did ask that non-contentious business be defined. That is reasonable enough. We indicated that, as was the case in 1996, the people who will be affected by it will be consulted as to how it might best be implemented. The principle was firmly supported by the vast majority of Committee members.

Mr Pat McNamee: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom tacú le tuairisc seo an Choiste ar an Ordú um Imscrúduithe Airgeadais chomh maith, agus go háirithe ba mhaith liom tacú go mór leis na moltaí atá ann ón Aire.
I too support the Committee’s report on the Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, particularly the recommendations which it makes to the Secretary of State. I, on behalf of my party, have no difficulty with enabling appropriate authorities to have the ability to identify and confiscate the proceeds of crime. I say that at the outset to pre-empt any remark which may follow.
I thank the Chairperson for giving the detail of the Order, which will save me referring to the particular articles. The Chairperson’s report was a fair reflection of the Committee’s debate and the submissions which were made, as the report itself is a fair reflection of the work of the Committee.
Whether there was any point to the establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee and its deliberations will be determined by whether the Secretary of State gives due recognition to the report and its recommendations. I say so because the draft Order is already in place. It has already been drafted and has been through both Houses in Westminster. When the Secretary of State receives the report from the Assembly the Order will simply require his signature to bring it into effect, if that is what he decides to do. There is, therefore, a question about the usefulness of the operation of the Committee. It will depend upon whether the Secretary of State takes on board its recommendations.
The Financial Investigations Order itself is a significant extension of powers which already exist under the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Some consider the powers available under the Proceeds of Crime Order 1996 to be draconian, particularly article49, which relates to the appointment and powers of a financial investigator. That part of the Proceeds of Crime Order is unique to the North of Ireland. It does not apply in England and Wales. It does not apply in Scotland, which has a different legal system. Similar powers of investigation are not available in the South of Ireland. The significant extension of those powers, which will be given by the Financial Investigations Order, will also be unique to the North of Ireland. We are told that there is an intention to bring a Bill before Westminster to put the powers of investigation in England and Wales on a par with those available here.
Others have asked why this Order is being brought in as an Order in Council. As a consequence, it does not undergo normal parliamentary debate and scrutiny. We are being delivered a ready-made package, following a lack of, or no, consultation.
We heard evidence from a wide range of people, and a number indicated that they were not consulted prior to the drafting of this Order. They had no opportunity to examine the study carried out on the exercise of the existing legislation — the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Law Society of Northern Ireland, Liberty and other organisations said there was no consultation prior to the drafting of the Order.
Other Members have pointed out the pressure of time on the Committee to deal with the issue, and that also applied to the people giving evidence. This matter was referred to the Assembly at the end of November by the Secretary of State. By the time the Committee was approved, appointed and had begun its work, it had barely three weeks to prepare a report for the Secretary of State by 12 February. The people we talked to had little time to study the legislation and had no prior consultation on the drafting. Many, including the Law Society of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, did indicate that their response was provisional, given the time restraints. In particular, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission raised a number of points. It prefaced what it had to say about the Order by stating that it was in favour of the principle of identifying and confiscating the proceeds of crime — it had no difficulty with that principle.
When we talk about the rights of the individual — and I will probably use this term several times — we are not necessarily talking about somebody who is the subject of an investigation. We are not talking about somebody who, on the balance of probability, may or may not be a criminal. We are talking about the rights of every individual who may be affected by the legislation. To listen to some, one might think that this legislation is only going to be used against those who are benefiting from drugs or some other illegal activity and have vast sums of money. This legislation will apply to us all. When we talk about the rights of the individual, we are talking about any individual. The rights of the individual need to be balanced against the need to empower the authorities to identify and confiscate the proceeds of crime. There are potential implications for an individual’s right to privacy.
The article that attracted most discussion was article 6. I must correct the Member who said only one person expressed reservations about article 6 and the Committee’s response to it. In my recollection, the Chairperson suggested that the Committee had little response apart from the point about the clarity of definition of "non-contentious business". I certainly made it clear that it was my wish that the Committee include in its response to article 6 recommendations to the Secretary of State. I wanted him to address the lack of consultation by carrying out meaningful consultations with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Law Society of Northern Ireland on the concerns they had expressed to the Committee. The Chairperson did support that view, but he did not initiate that response with regard to article 6.
I am not going to go through all the articles. Article 6 is the most significant one. There are consequences for other parts of the Order. The legislation allows the appointment of Customs and Excise officers with certain powers of investigation, namely the power to issue general bank circulars or solicitor circulars. Article 6 extends the subject of a circular to solicitors’ practices.
We now have the issue of solicitor/client confidentiality and legal/professional privilege. The Law Society of Northern Ireland feels that is an important principle. It did not say that the nature of the system of law would be shattered by the introduction of the Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001. However, it said that it believes it to be a further encroachment on the principle of solicitor/client confidentiality and legal/ professional privilege.
They went on to explain that, at present, solicitors are subject to the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and they can be required to produce information and documents relating to the activities of individuals under investigation or transactions they may have carried out. Solicitors are already subject to such provisions. However, under the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, there is specific protection given to the principle of solicitor/client confidentiality and legal/professional privilege.
I refer to schedule 2(4) of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which clearly determines when it is appropriate for a solicitor to give information and when it is not, because of legal/professional privilege. However, the same safeguards are not in the provisions of the Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001. The explanatory document refers to the enabling power of a trawl — for that is what it is. Any general solicitor circular issued will be issued to each solicitor’s practice in the North of Ireland on the basis of the identification of a person under investigation.
The Northern Ireland Bankers’ Association indicated in its submission that when its members are given the identity of a person they may have to consider other similar names, aliases and a number of potential addresses of the identified individual under investigation. This is in order to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the Order and stay within the law. That, we can assume, will also apply to solicitors, as regards the application of this Order.
With respect to solicitor/client confidentiality, if the person being targeted for the purposes of investigation has made hundreds, thousands or millions of pounds from the proceeds of crime — be it from drugs or anything else — so be it. However, there are the rights of other individuals who may have been involved innocently in transactions with that individual. People with similar names may be identified. Information about their personal business and transactions will also have to be produced. That is why the Law Society, in the explanatory document which accompanied the Order, referred to it as a trawl. Because of the very wide nature of that trawl, which article 6 will enable financial investigators, members of the police and Customs and Excise to carry out, the Law Society has expressed concerns about solicitor/client confidentiality and legal/ professional privilege.
The Law Society also stated that it was not opposed to the concept of identifying or confiscating the proceeds of crime. It made the point that there should be meaningful consultation with the Secretary of State before the implementation of the Order.
I leave my remarks there. The report reflects the business carried out by the Committee and the views of the Committee fairly well. I ask Members to support the report. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Seamus Close: I will join in the commendations of the Assembly staff in particular. It is fair to say that they strived far beyond the normal call of duty to enable this report to be produced, and to provide assistance for the Committee in the preparation of this report, coming as it did at the festive season.
I also want to underline the comments of previous Members who drew attention to the fact — not for the first time — that, while the Assembly is often put in the position of having to present complete reports or commentary on pieces of legislation, it often has little or no time to perform its function adequately. I had occasion to draw attention to this fact yesterday, and it happens again today.
Yet again, the message must go out loudly and clearly that there is a Northern Ireland Assembly to represent the people of Northern Ireland now. It shall not be, and should not be, treated with the type of contempt which seems to be becoming practice. Many of us are getting sick, sore and tired of this sort of behaviour. It is important to underline and stress that point every time that it happens, so that the slow drip might eventually get through to those who wish to sideline the voice of the elected representative.
The proposals in the Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 strengthen and amend powers which are provided for in the Proceeds of Crime Order (Northern Ireland) 1996. Their intention is explicit — to prevent criminals profiting from unlawful activity. Everyone in the House, without exception, should share the view that we have a responsibility to ensure that criminals do not profit from crime.
It is essential that criminals are deterred from their inclination to commit crime. The only way we can ensure that that will happen is to send out the strong and unambiguous message that crime does not pay. What can people see if they adopt the guise of the proverbial dogs in the street, which are often mentioned, and use their eyes and ears to look around? Any reasonable and sane person can see that the law, as it exists, is failing. It is failing society, and, because it is failing society, it appears to be assisting the criminal. That must end.
As mentioned earlier, some people have a lifestyle that totally belies their only apparent source of legitimate income. In many cases, their only current source of income is the dole or social security benefits, and yet they drive around in flashy cars and take their families on holidays to sunny climes. They demonstrate it more, and do much more, than we poor Assembly Members can possibly afford to do. Yet there are those outside who poke fun at us and say "Look at how much they are earning." When will we be able to afford holidays to sunny climes, to drive around in flashy cars, or to own numerous pieces of property in this city? Can we say that it all came from legitimate businesses — businesses over which no one would put a question mark?
We must ensure that the law is strengthened if we genuinely want to create a safe and just society. The existing law has been described as draconian, yet it is failing us. Is proof needed? The proof lies in the fact that crime — the mafia-style culture referred to earlier — is increasing. Do not accept my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker. For example, look at the drugs seizures, which have escalated by a hundred fold over several years.
The law is inadequate and needs to be strengthened if we are serious about producing the type of society that we want.
We must prevent criminals from profiting from their crime. Much of the profit from crime is used to finance further crime; it has a multiplier effect. That must be stopped, sooner rather than later, or we will be seen as being insincere about what we are endeavouring to do. Most crime is motivated by profit, so we must do all in our power to reduce and eliminate the profit motive. The report that we are discussing is a further step in that direction, but it is just a step. We must go further towards civil forfeiture, if we are to deal adequately with the growing problems that confront society. Reference has been made to the Criminal Assets Bureau in the South of Ireland, and there is also the example of legislation such as the RICO laws, introduced by the FBI to deal with the Mafia in the USA.
If we are serious about protecting the human rights of every decent man, woman and child, we must get the balance right. At the moment, the balance is tilting in favour of the criminal; if it were not, criminals would not be profiting to the extent that they do. We have suffered 30 years of terror: is it too much to expect that as we move, we hope, normality, we do so as the type of society of which we can be proud? That is not too much to ask.
Some who came before our Committee, although recognising the need to deal with crime, questioned the need to legislate in Northern Ireland in advance of the rest of the UK. They said that they did not have evidence that it was necessary here. I have a simple reply to that: I aspire — I hope that the whole House aspires — to a type of society in Northern Ireland that is better than that found in some cities in the rest of the UK. That is not too much to ask. We should set our sights higher, and we should strive daily to ensure that our legacy to future generations is a society of which they can be proud. To do that, we must emphasise that, in Northern Ireland, crime does not pay. If we do not succeed in that, we will have been wasting our time.
The civil rights of the individual are important; I would uphold them to the nth degree. However, a balance must be struck between the civil rights of those who commit crime and the civil rights of those who suffer as a result. There is an old legal maxim:
"He who comes to equity must come with clean hands."
That should be put up in lights. People who want to use the law should ensure that they are not breaking it and are not merely seeking loopholes.
Members of the Assembly, as potential legislators, should also be prepared to look under every stone to see what worms are wriggling underneath and deal with them accordingly.
The Assembly should aspire to the words of Willie Hofmeyr, head of the Asset Forfeiture Unit in South Africa. He said:
"Offenders smiled when they got 15 to 20 year jail sentences which they regarded as an occupational hazard, but they literally burst into tears when they lost their favourite Rolls Royce, the family home, the kids’ private education, the wife’s luxurious lifestyle. Police have started seeing forfeiture as a way of hurting and getting at these guys."
That should be the Assembly’s goal if it is going to clean up society and do away with the Mafia culture that is continuing to spread its tentacles.

Mr David Ervine: Some form of explanation is required in order to give Members an impression or understanding of my experience of the Ad Hoc Committee. I remember saying that the insertion of certain provisos — for example, that the Secretary of State might have a chat, consultation or dialogue with people from whom the Committee had already heard — was a cop-out. It was rather like saying "The majority of us have made this decision, but if you can get the Secretary of State to pay attention you may have a chance." I felt that that was alien, but I was prepared to take a benign view and accept that, even though there was not unanimity in the Committee, there was a substantial majority.
In my experience of the Ad Hoc Committee, its Chairperson, Deputy Chairpersonn and members performed with excellence. However, the Chairperson protests too much today — there was too much emphasis on the minority position. If I were in a similar position I would suggest a minority report. It is unfortunate, but I concede that, for the most benign reasons, the majority of the Committee agreed that those who wished to should talk to the Secretary of State — not to be heard, but to feel, at least, that they had their day. That is what will happen.
I am concerned that all of this boils down to what solicitors say about the solicitor/client relationship. I accept that solicitors are exalted people and that law is an exalted and trusted profession. However, solicitors did not make it so; society founded that process. Now society is saying that, even though solicitors are an exalted and trusted people in an exalted and trusted profession, it is going to make another profession. What is wrong with that?
Society is going to make investigators who will, I imagine, be as trustworthy as solicitors, and who will not talk in the golf club about the cases they are investigating — just as the solicitors do not talk about the clients they represent. Is there some besmirchment on other human beings that they are not to be deemed capable of behaving with the calm rationale of solicitors? Is that what is being said?
Some solicitors have said that the time frames for doing a trawl on one person or more are difficult for a one- or two-man business to achieve. I understand that it takes time. However, I am almost insulted when solicitors tell me that the balance that has to be weighed up between civil or human rights and the need to protect society boils down to what they think the solicitor/client relationship is or should be.
We asked the bankers if they believed that society has lost faith in the banking system because of the Proceeds of Crime (NorthernIreland) Order1996. The answer was a clear, unequivocal "No". If a bank manager — someone who knows your business and who would not talk about you over his gin and tonic in the golf club, yet is able to deal with the police and investigators trained for the job — does not feel that his profession has been besmirched, why should solicitors feel affected by the Order?
It is not really the criminal whom we want to protect; it is the people whom the criminal may have financial dealings with. Solicitors may handle the affairs of such people quite innocently even though the person at the other end of a financial deal is nefarious. The innocent would have no knowledge of that. If a drug dealer, or someone involved in another form of illegal amassing of wealth, reads Hansard tomorrow, he may say to himself "The more I do deals with clean people, the safer I am." Essentially that is the logic of what is being said. The dirty person may do the deal with a clean person, but because we care so much about the clean person’s privacy we cannot follow the trail of financial impropriety of the person under investigation. It is ludicrous.
The Members who have spoken specifically in favour of the Order’s going forward seem illiberal compared to some of our Colleagues who are not remotely illiberal. I am sure that Committee members have privately questioned whether we are doing the right thing.
I do not want to keep picking on my Colleagues or solicitors, or on the legal fraternity in general, but no lawyers live in my street. I live in a working-class Housing Executive street. There are no lawyers in it, but there are drug dealers not far away. There are those who can ply their trade, play loud music and are virtually untouchable because of their strength and power in those working-class communities. A solicitor cannot hear that and does not see it. When we ask for powers to be given to a section of our society whose job it is to catch criminals, we get those who defend criminals saying that it is not a good idea. In fairness, we must give people the tools to do the job. We do not ask lawyers to catch criminals; we ask investigators to catch criminals. Unless we give them the tools to do the job, then, as my Colleague Mr Close has said, they will fail. SammyWilson made the point that some Members believe that the suggested legislation is not proactive enough.
Let me give you an example that goes further than that given by MrClose. He identified what the dogs in the street — which, by the way, are pups, so we know a bit about them — know about the person living nearby who has all the trappings of wealth and is on unemployment benefit. He is safe as long as he is not caught perpetrating a crime. In other words, as long as he does not get caught committing a crime, he can have as much wealth as he wishes, provided it is not perceived that he is a money launderer. One can be proactive about money launderers, but one cannot be proactive about the ones whom you can see.
That is illogical. Let us look sneaky and beaky about the ones we cannot see, because they are very clever and careful. They make paper trails, which is why we need legislation to follow them. Here they are, right in front of our faces, and we are not allowed to do anything about it. The ordinary people where I live will be saying that it does not add up and asking why somebody does not go and rap his door. Somebody who has the strength and the power should rap his door and ask where he keeps his money, where he got his money and what he does every day that gives him the capacity to live the way he does. The bookies? The lottery? Society says that you are not allowed to do that.
The best we have is what is before us. In paragraph 4 of its submission, the Law Society of Northern Ireland questioned why this measure is only being introduced here. I can only give my own assessment of that, because I had no dialogue with the Secretary of State when this was being planned. I imagine that in Glasgow, Cardiff or London it has taken time for drug and criminal networking to blossom. They have not done that well at stopping it over there. I suggest that we are not as far down the line on the issue of drugs as they are, but we sure as hell are catching up. The reason that this is being implemented in Northern Ireland is that we have structures ready and waiting — perhaps not waiting any more — that are quite capable of becoming, overnight, drug cartels that would frighten the life out of you. I am talking about elements of paramilitarism.
At this point I will give a glimpse of my former life. In mid-Ulster in 1994 I was in a very heated debate about issues relating to ceasefires with a group of people who have since become that exalted wonderful group the Loyalist Volunteer Force. They were not that then, but they have become that. They tried to tell me that they thought drugs were a good idea for financing the war. There are some stupid people among them who fell for the idea that it was for the great cause, and they moved in the direction of drugs. I do not say this simply to vilify them, even though they are eminently worthy of vilification, but because if they masquerade as drug dealers to feed and fuel the war, history tells us that you cannot build a war economy and not go to war.
That is why this swift, serious and, if you like, draconian legislation is required. I hope that that will serve as an example. Believe me, it is a real one. It applies to almost every area in this country. I live in Belfast, where heroin is freely available. Strangely enough, in what might pass in any society for small towns that are considered to be beyond urban development, in rural society — the Bible belt, as it is called in many countries — real hard drugs are available and have been for some time.
We used to watch American movies where all the bad things happened in the big cities. Belfast is our equivalent of a big bad city. I wonder how easily we have polluted the rest of this society. Belfast is actually cleaner, in some respects, than some of our very small towns.
What I am trying to explain is that this problem — while not as severe, so far, as in some areas of the British Isles and further afield — is escalating quickly and happening virtually on everybody’s doorstep. Criminals who ply the nefarious trade not just of drugs but of all crime that amasses wealth are doing very well. In the past 12 months there have been two major drugs seizures with a street value of £1 million each. When somebody imports such things, he has to feel that he can afford such a loss. And those who feel that they can afford to lose £1 million must be quite wealthy. In this tiny, parochial society that always thought that such things only happened in the big, bad world, all of this is happening round the corner. Unless we can put the purveyors of this terrible and stinking trade into retreat, we will suffer the consequences for a long time. Worse than that, our children will suffer them.
In closing, let me point out that irrespective of what the rest of the United Kingdom does, we have to keep pace with our responsibilities to broader society. If that means putting people beyond their ease, making them look over their shoulder, making them suffer logistically, then we must do that. I do not believe we have any other option.
I reiterate my disappointment that the legislation is not proactive enough. However, I imagine that at some future date the Assembly — given the evidence that it sees outside and that some do not see, as one of my Colleagues has noted — will be brought back to this subject again and again. We have not seen the last child who will die from drugs. Let me put it as starkly as that: we have not seen the last child who will die from drugs. And when those deaths occur, the responsibility will lie in this Chamber. We might tell people that it is Adam Ingram’s job as Security Minister or that the responsibility lies at Whitehall, but no matter what constituency we Members represent, it will be the responsibility of this House. Therefore, we will revisit this matter again and again, and we will get to the point where we will be fundamentally more proactive than we have been in the legislation that I commend to you now.

Mr Alban Maginness: I think there is universal support for this report. A theme in most contributions was that the Committee worked to a very tight time frame, which was imposed by others. A strong message should go from the Assembly to the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State that we should be given a reasonable amount of time to react to proposals from the Government. That is a theme which everyone can support.
I want to thank Mr Billy Bell for his comments. The Committee strove to reach a balanced report. There were differences of opinion in the Committee, although I do not think that they were as great as some contributors seemed to think.
Nonetheless, the Committee worked hard to try to achieve a balance. First, there was total agreement on the need for such legislation. Secondly, there was also total agreement on the Committee’s reservations and concerns which can be seen at the end of its report.
I am disappointed that my presentation today has been criticised as being unbalanced. If there was an imbalance, it was not done deliberately on my part. I guard jealously the neutrality of chairmanship. As a Chairman, I have always tried to be balanced and to extend that impartiality to reports.
However, in a report it is important to present the Committee’s arguments. A majority in the Committee took the view that article 6 should be supported. I fully accept that and I do not want to detract from the strong views expressed by members. The fact that I do not share that view played no part in my presentation today. I wanted to present a balanced view without damaging the views expressed in the Committee.
Mr Sammy Wilson mentioned "speculative trawling" — a term he attributed to me. That expression came, in fact, from the Law Society of Northern Ireland’s submission. It was not a personal remark. So far as shattering the foundations of the legal system is concerned, surely even MrWilson accepts that that was over-egging the pudding.
The report is a good one. Good work was done by all the Assembly Members who attended meetings and made contributions. I accept the comment by Mr McNamee that when Orders in Council and this type of legislation are being dealt with, the value of this method of investigation can be questionable. However, it is the responsibility of the Government to take us seriously and to demonstrate that the introduction of legislation through Orders in Council is not an attempt to evade proper debate, consultation and participation by local legislators.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the report of the Ad Hoc Committee set up to consider the draft Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 referred by the Secretary of State be submitted to the Secretary of State as a report of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Madam Deputy Speaker.]

Carraigfoyle Paediatric Support Unit

Dr Ian Adamson: I am grateful to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for her presence.
I should like to address the Assembly in my own County Down Gaelic, which may be a wee bit hard for some Members to understand, but perhaps they can look at Hansard afterwards.
D’oibrigh mise mar dhochtúir leighis i measc an phobail ar feadh 30 bliain. Is speisialtóir i bpéidiatraic mé. Agus anois tá lúchair mhór orm bhur n-aire a tharraingt ar Carraigfoyle Paediatric Support Unit. Tá an t-aonad iontach seo faoi lán seoil le 19 mbliana. Cuidíonn sé go mór le taca thar barr a thabhairt do pháistí míchumasacha agus dá gcuid tuismitheoirí. Tá mé millteanach buartha faoi na hathruithe atá á bplé faoi láthair agus tá na tuismitheoirí iontach míshásta leo fosta.
As a practising medical doctor — you will be glad to hear — who has specialised in paediatrics for the past 30 years, I have great pleasure in bringing before the House the far-reaching case of Carraigfoyle paediatric support unit. This superb unit has now been in existence for 19 years and provides a number of support services to disabled children and their parents. I would like to address the issue of the impending changes to its service, and the resultant dismay of parents.
The recent announcement that two major aspects of the work at Carraigfoyle would be altered leaves a tremendous gap in service in Belfast for our most disabled paediatric patients. The team at Carraigfoyle, including social workers and play therapists, has recognised the needs of the most severely disabled children in our society and has built an unrivalled support team for the children and their families during the critical pre-school years. More recently, the unit obtained even greater expertise in the evaluation and management of challenging behaviour, especially of children in the autistic spectrum. The care provided in Carraigfoyle far transcends anything that could be set up in a hospital. The total package far exceeds the sum of the parts. It is quite disturbing to think, therefore, that this model is now being discarded at the very time when other trusts in the United Kingdom are realising its benefits.
Another great strength of the Carraigfoyle paediatric support unit is that through careful planning, children and families facing similar difficulties are brought together and can share information, learn together and support each other. It is, therefore, quite unacceptable that the Pippins day support service and the Apple Lodge overnight respite service will both go.
Carraigfoyle staff have always demonstrated an appreciation of other services through their regular sharing of information with, for example, the education sector and the learning disability nurses. Nothing in our area even comes close to providing the model of care which Barnardo’s has given, recognising and anticipating as it does the needs of our most vulnerable and pressurised families in their most vulnerable years.
My greatest worry is for the children with severe and complex disabilities. These children generally suffer from spastic quadriplegia, and most of them have severe learning disablities, coupled with epilepsy and feeding problems. Carraigfoyle’s Pippins group provides a nursery on two mornings a week for these children in the two-year gap between their first birthday and pre-school provision in a special school. The support given to the parents of these children is invaluable. They especially appreciate the transport that is provided to the nursery and the great consistency in the staff who deal with their children, so that both the parents and the children become very familiar with them.
I am not aware of anywhere else in north Down and Ards that provides this sort of service. The only similar place I know of in south and east Belfast is Segal House, and it does not take children from the north Down and Ards area.
In Carraigfoyle the children have regular therapy from multidisciplinary teams and the paediatricians regularly see the therapists at the child development centre in the Ulster Hospital. Therefore, a holistic service is available to families, which would be difficult to reproduce in another setting.
Carraigfoyle has continually stepped in to provide support just when it was needed. By the time children are a yearold, the parents are just starting to realise the extent of their problems and are already exhausted by a first year, which is usually packed with medical problems.
Carraigfoyle has also provided important therapy for children with autism. Barnardo’s is planning to expand that work, which is also necessary as pre-school provision for children with autism is generally abysmal. While I agree that that service needs to be expanded, I am concerned that it will be at the expense of severely multiply handicapped little persons, who do not appear to be so politically fashionable at present.
The parents are extremely concerned about the loss of another facility provided by Carraigfoyle, and that is the overnight respite in Apple Lodge — a small unit in the Carraigfoyle complex. Apple Lodge takes three children a night, and one of its main features has been consistency in the carers looking after the children, meaning that the children are always cared for by a loving and familiar staff. Two staff are on duty at night, which is obviously important for the safety of the children and which reassures the staff themselves when dealing with fragile young persons.
It would be perverse to suggest that this is institutional respite in any way. Parents have always regarded it as a home from home for their children, especially in those early days before exhaustion has completely set in. Many parents are understandably anxious about leaving their children with anyone else. In Carraigfoyle, by the time they have overnight respite they usually know the staff and the system well, and that reduces parental anxiety.
The fashionable thing nowadays is to talk about respite, either with another family or in a child’s own home. I have major concerns about this for the small group of physically frail, multiply handicapped little persons, who are mostly served by Carraigfoyle. First, respite in a family’s own home is not likely to provide complete rest for parents, although it is better than nothing. It will be very difficult for the local trusts or Barnardo’s to find people willing to take frail, multiply handicapped little persons into their homes. It is difficult enough to find enough foster parents for ordinary children, let alone for those who are likely to have convulsions, require tube feeding or are on multiple medications.
In an ideal world it would be lovely for children to have respite care with a skilled, competent carer in their own homes. However, that is not going to be possible. I am extremely concerned that those children are going to lose out. I am worried that respite care provision for children will follow the same path as provision for mental health patients and for children in social services care. If respite were reduced for those families, I would be worried that the children would end up spending more and more time in hospital, which is not at all desirable — I have worked there for most of my life.
Parents have also told me that a major advantage of the Carraigfoyle paediatric support unit is its simple reliability. They are not dependent on one respite carer who may be ill or have family illness or problems. In Carraigfoyle, someone will always fill in.
I must commend Barnardo’s, which has provided a higher percentage of the funding for the Carraigfoyle paediatric support unit than it usually does for similar projects. Nevertheless, that means that if Barnardo’s withdraws or redistributes its funding, the trusts will have to put in more resources.
My firm impression is that the board wants to have more "bricks-and-mortar" respite, to extend respite services to older children and to provide more services for autistic children without increasing any funding. I am, therefore, very concerned that there will be a small group of severely handicapped, vulnerable little persons and their families who will lose out. I am extremely annoyed that these parents, who already have enough to cope with, have been put in this position.
In liaison with my paediatric colleagues, whose lives have been dedicated to the health and well-being of children and young people, I must register my disapproval of any attempt to close Carraigfoyle or to reduce any of its services.

Dr Joe Hendron: It is a pleasure to join with Dr Adamson in his support for Carraigfoyle paediatric support unit. He began by speaking in, I think, Ulster Scots. That confused me, because I thought that he was speaking Irish, but perhaps the Minister will be able to clarify that.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: It was Irish.

Dr Joe Hendron: I have a little Irish, but I would be afraid to use it here.

Dr Ian Adamson: It was Ulster Irish.

Dr Joe Hendron: I beg your pardon.
I am well aware of Dr Adamson’s long experience of dealing with children with disabilities. Although I have had some experience in those matters myself, it does not compare with his.
I salute the work that Barnardo’s has done in this regard, and in others, for children in Northern Ireland and far beyond. It has been providing this service for disabled children since 1981 — 20 years of high-quality service. In 1998 the Eastern Health and Social Services Board produced a commissioning document about integrating disabled children more fully into the community.
Dr Adamson spoke about children and families. It is very important in this day and age that respite care should be available for disabled people, be they adults or children. I appreciate that this can be a major problem, given the massive financial constraints on the Health Service. I know that the Minister would support these ideas in principle, but when it gets down to the question of hard cash the story is a different one. We have seen families who look after a disabled child, and any organisation that can help them on an ongoing basis deserves credit and our thanks. The love of a mother, father, brothers and sisters for a disabled child is immense, and people who look after a disabled child must get every possible support. Respite care is very important.
Dr Adamson also mentioned children who have epilepsy or convulsions, or who are on multiple medication. It takes a lot of diligent care to make sure that they are properly looked after. He referred to Apple Lodge. I am not familiar with Carraigfoyle, but I know that it has provided consistency in care and that people see it as a home from home for these children. Families have felt that a child was really being looked after, and it was more like a second home for them.
Dr Adamson has made all the main points, but I want to mention a few principles. It is very important that disabled children be looked after in their community, as far as possible. They should be able to be included in their community and to do the same things that non-disabled children can do; they should be able to live with their parents unless this is not in their best interests; they should be able to go to their local playgroup, nursery and school; they should be able to use the same leisure and community facilities as everybody else, but have alternative forms of care, where necessary, which are family-based; and they should be able to express their views and have them taken into account when decisions are being made about their lives. Finally, they should be able to receive the necessary kinds and levels of support to enable them to do these things.
Over the years, Barnardo’s has provided these services specifically for disabled children, and Carraigfoyle is one such service. These are excellent services of the highest quality. However, while initially they were at the forefront of developments, they are now replicated in trust provision across Northern Ireland.
I support what Dr Adamson has been doing. If there is any way that the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee can be of help on this particular matter, we will be delighted.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I will not be speaking in Ulster Irish, Irish Irish or any other kind of Irish — first, because I could not; secondly, because I would not.
I congratulate Dr Adamson on drawing this issue to the attention of the Assembly. I have had some involvement with some parents who are seeking to persuade Barnardo’s to reverse its decision and keep this facility open. I am not an expert in the present medical theories on the best way of looking after youngsters with severe disabilities and who are very fragile.
I come to this from two bases. First, looking at the strength of the case Barnardo’s has made and, secondly, looking at the information given to me by those who benefited from this particular facility. I fear that Barnardo’s has used the report commissioned by the Eastern Health and Social Services Board in 1998, wherein, quite rightly, people said that they did not wish those with handicaps to be isolated from society; they wanted them to be integrated as much as possible. I took a cursory look through the findings. Nowhere was there any indication that people wanted to see those specialist facilities that were supportive of families with extremely fragile children removed — nowhere. Barnardo’s has used that as an excuse. A closer examination is required. If Dr Hendron is saying that the Health Committee might want to look at this, then one of the starting points might be Barnardo’s own contention that it is only responding to public demand. I do not believe that there is any evidence for that.
Dr Hendron read out the list of principles laid down by Barnardo’s — what it believes the rights of disabled children should be. All very worthwhile and high-sounding — the kind of thing we would want to support. However, I have had the privilege of attending meetings, more as an observer and listener than as one with a great deal of expertise. The parents I have heard have told me that the type of support services they are able to obtain at Carraigfoyle are a kind of lifeline.
In fact, one parent used that term. This "lifeline" enabled them to keep on giving support at home to their children, to meet the principles Dr Hendron read out. We cannot afford to ignore the views of the parents who, day in and day out, live with the disabilities their youngsters suffer from.
The third point I want to make is that Barnardo’s has made a great play on the consultation document and on the views expressed by those consulted. However, the one thing I have found lacking in the document is the degree of consultation it had directly with the people who you would have thought it should have been responding to most — the parents who actually had youngsters at Pippin or Apple Lodge.
There is a huge gap in the degree of consultation. Many parents indicated to me that it was not so much a case of consultation, but simply Barnardo’s communicating a decision it intended to make. I have received a document from Barnardo’s today in which it tries to outline in detail why it has made the decision. It was based on the principle of caring in the community and on the fact that there was this input into the consultation documents. It is bereft of any indication that parents did not want it.
The irony is that one of the reasons it gave in the document for ending the service — which was sent to a number of Members who it suspected would be involved in this debate — was that the service has become so popular that many trusts have replicated it. I would have thought that if a number of trusts had identified that this was the kind of care parents were looking for, and had gone on to provide it, that was a reason for maintaining and not concluding the service.
Ultimately, when I look at this document I become cynical. Buried in the middle of it is the fact that the unit costs £350,000 per year. I ask myself a question which has been asked in the Assembly on several occasions. Is the commitment to care in the community more about saving money than giving disabled children and their families a better deal?
Moreover, Carraigfoyle is located just down the road from the Assembly. It is in an area of very prime demand for building land. It is on a prime site and I suspect it comprises about 4 acres. In east Belfast terms, it would be worth between £0·75 million and £1 million. One has to ask if economics is behind this decision. Does Barnardo’s see a comparison between a cost of £350,000 per year and an income of perhaps £3 million or £4 million? That income could be providing it with a revenue stream rather than incurring it a cost.
I note that the Minister is in the Chamber today. One thing that we need to discover is whether or not the decision was driven in any way by an indication to Barnardo’s from the Eastern Health and Social Services Board, or the various trusts, that they were no longer prepared to pay for the service. I tried to find that information and ascertain the facts, but I was unsuccessful. It would be useful to have that matter clarified. Did Barnardo’s see that it was going to be more difficult to receive payment for the services being provided in these facilities? Did the trusts and boards indicate that they would use their own facilities instead of Barnardo’s?
I want to comment on the human side of this issue. Dr Adamson outlined the services provided — nursery provision and some important residential care for one or two nights per week. This has enabled parents who had the intensive task of looking after youngsters to be relieved of that burden for a time. It has given them time for themselves and some respite; it has allowed them to get a breather or perhaps a night out. However, it is important to note that at the same time they knew that — to use Dr Adamson’s term — their "fragile" children were in the hands of people who knew how to care for them and who had their children’s confidence because they regularly attended Apple Lodge.
That is an important safeguard and lifeline for parents who give intensive care to their youngsters. It is not sufficient to say that they can be put into some kind of temporary foster care — I am not an expert on this, so that is probably not the right term — which allows them go to different people’s homes for a night. I learned from many of these parents who love their youngsters so dearly that they were not prepared, or did not have the confidence, to take the risk of farming their youngsters out to people who might not have the expertise to look after them. Indeed, some of the youngsters might not be happy with strangers. The residential element is all-important. One argument made against it was that it is only available for children up to the age of 10. Surely that is better than not having it at all.
I do not want to go through any more of those arguments put forward by Barnardo’s, which I regard as unsatisfactory. I hope that I have outlined the case to the best of my ability.
I trust that this debate will have several results. First, it should draw attention to what I feel is an arbitrary decision by Barnardo’s, without sufficient reference to the parents of the youngsters involved.
Secondly, I hope that we can clear up some questions about the nature of the role, if any, that the Eastern Health and Social Services Board played in this decision. Was it the board’s document that sparked this off? Did the Eastern Health and Social Services Board push Barnardo’s in a particular direction because of recommendations in that document? Was there a financial consideration? Did the Eastern Health and Social Services Board indicate that its contribution to the facility was going to be cut off? I hope that we will receive answers to some of those questions.
Thirdly, I hope that this debate will give despairing parents real hope that their public representatives have taken their point of view to heart.

Mr David Ervine: I have to declare an interest. A member of my family works for Barnardo’s at Carraigfoyle.
Carraigfoyle has been going for 19years, and I have been aware of it for nineyears. For nineyears I have known that the work that went on inside Carraigfoyle was wonderful. Thanks to the integrity of the staff I have not known much else. I cannot know all the details and the individual circumstances, because that is a very private matter between the parents and those who assist them in caring for their children. I am loath to go too deeply. I praise my Colleague for bringing up this issue. He articulated my sentiments in relation to Carraigfoyle better than I ever could — especially those that I understood.
I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to pay due attention to my declaration of interest. My Colleague SammyWilson hit on some very important points. I think that he already knows that to suffer as the parents do is massively compounded when the value of your child’s care is measured in terms of money or land. If it happens to be at the top of the BelmontRoad, then it is both, is it not? That is the reality of the situation.
So far as I am concerned, the management of Carraigfoyle is a management. A manager is a manager is a manager. I am minded to tell what I know about the confusion that existed around Carraigfoyle when questions were being asked both by parents and staff. In the early days, smoke and mirrors seem to have been used quite effectively by the management at Carraigfoyle to cause confusion and to avoid answering the questions. It was almost like Chinese water torture: a drip on a stone, where nothing was actually said but at some point you worked out yourself that things were not going well.
Then came the admission Ian Adamson described: the abandonment of wonderful facilities that are not, to my knowledge, replicated anywhere in the immediate area of this Assembly, nor are likely to be, because they have their own ambience, I imagine. Certainly, the staff there are totally and absolutely committed.
To say that I care and that my party will support it is never enough when dealing with what Ian Adamson eloquently described as "vulnerable little persons". He described them not as disabled children, or as those who cannot talk or feed themselves, but as "vulnerable little persons". They are "wee people" who deserve everything that this society can give them.
I fear that we will never know whether this is the fault of management being managers on the basis of the difficulties that finances create for every manager, or whether it was sparked off by the Department. If we tried to find out, we would end up with the smoke and mirrors again, because the decision was not made in the open. The decisions were not made with the parents or the staff. In fact, you might ask where the decisions were made.
I cannot believe that anybody directly involved with Carraigfoyle was remotely consulted. That worries me, and perhaps when she speaks the Minister will clarify, at least from a departmental point of view, where the blame — if we can use that word — lies.
Either way — and Ian Adamson has summed this up — in respect of Carraigfoyle we have been offered a fait accompli. Unless there is a serious intervention, we have a fait accompli from which there is no way out.

Rev Robert Coulter: The four Members who have already spoken have highlighted most of the major points, and I congratulate them on that. Members are not here to make party political points; they are here because there is an underlying humanity which cries out that young people who cannot help themselves need to be given the help of those who are able-bodied.
The situation in Carraigfoyle not only affects those little people who need that help but also the parents who, from the birth of their child and through the early years, have looked after and suffered with them through their disabilities. The points that would call from us the deep emotions of our hearts are not only that the children need help but that the parents need respite. It means a lot to parents to get a full night’s sleep in the knowledge that their child whom they dearly love is being professionally cared for in Apple Lodge. In supporting the continuation of the facilities at Carraigfoyle and Apple Lodge, Members are assisting in some way to continue that help which the parents are calling for.
Design teams may be up and running, but most of the parents — and I have talked to some of them and have been deeply impressed by their sincerity — have little faith and feel that they are nothing more than a cosmetic exercise. I am interested in what the response of the Eastern Health Board will be regarding the provision of alternatives for users of Carraigfoyle. As yet — and perhaps it is my fault — I have been unable to lay hands upon that information. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten the Assembly.
Many questions have been asked about the attitude of Barnardo’s, and I pay tribute to its work over the years. No one can point the finger and say that Barnardo’s has been short on its care. However, when I look at the situation in Carraigfoyle, I wonder, like the other Members who have already spoken, what the motive behind it is. Is it generated by finance? The service is being wound down and there have recently been a number of voluntary redundancies, including the social worker who was made redundant. Family support services are no longer available. It is being run down to such an extent that the future of the unit is not viable. It generates questions in our minds and makes us ask why Barnardo’s is doing this. Those questions must be answered.
My Colleague Dr Adamson, the Lord Mayor of Belfast; the Chairperson of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee, Dr Hendron and David Ervine have covered a lot of ground on this subject, but all of us are together on one point. We need answers to the questions. Why is this being done now, and what is being put in its place?

Sir Reg Empey: Everyone who has been involved in this case understands that the professionals in the public sector and in Barnardo’s are in the profession for the good of those who are suffering, to alleviate that suffering and to assist the families in a compassionate way. However, having attended some meetings with parents — as Colleagues have also done — I could not fail to be moved by the situation in which these families found themselves and by the emotion that was being expressed. I felt that the professionals, and perhaps even Barnardo’s, did not fully appreciate that the service that they were providing was such a benefit to the families concerned. Anyone who attended those meetings and listened to people’s concerns and distress would naturally turn to see why this is happening and how it can be alleviated. It is a natural human emotion. My Colleagues will confirm that everyone approached the matter with that in mind.
We understand that there are economics and that there are different ways in which these matters are dealt with nowadays. Things move on. Methods of assisting, such as care in the community, have been introduced, and there have been many good ideas. However, with the greatest respect to Barnardo’s — which has a reputation throughout the country which is second to none — I must place on record that I did not consider the methodology that it adopted in handling this issue to have been the best possible practice. That is not meant to denigrate in any way any person involved in Barnardo’s. I think that Barnardo’s would admit that the way in which the matter was handled was not necessarily best practice in this day and age, and it could have been better dealt with.
There is one other matter that we need to clear up. There is a perception in the community that there is a financial issue surrounding the site — that it is an extremely valuable site for housing redevelopment. That perception may be true or false, but I hope that there is no suggestion that that financial aspect is one of the motives behind the closure. Barnardo’s has advised us that that is not the case. It believes that there are better ways of delivering a service to the families than the current method, although it has to be said that that service, the professionals who work in the home, the help and the caring atmosphere are greatly appreciated and have impacted indelibly on these families. It will be hard to replace that in any new system, however well-intentioned. Nevertheless, I hope that it is possible to get that issue out of the way. The response will involve the health boards, the trusts and the charity itself.
There appears to be the potential for crossed lines and for overlap. Very often the danger in these cases is that the people for whom the service is to be provided sometimes fall between the crevices of such a situation. I hope that that will not happen in this case. We want to do our very best for these families and for the children so that they can have the best possible quality of life. I repeat that nothing that we are saying is in any way intended to denigrate, criticise or do anything to harm the reputations of any of the people involved.
We are working from the assumption that everybody is doing their best. However, I believe that the methodology adopted has left some families feeling that things have not been done by the best method or that the solution put forward as an alternative to the services provided is not necessarily one that they want.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Is seirbhís riachtanach í an cúram faoisimh do chúramóirí má tá siad le leanstan ar aghaidh ina rólanna cúraim.
Tá Carraig Feabhail á reachtáil ag Barnardo’s chan ag na SSSP. Is faoi atá an cinneadh faoi dhruidim le déanamh. I ndiaidh 20 bliain de sheirbhís dhílis rinne Barnardo’s aithbhreithniú ar oiriúnacht an chineáil faoisimh chónaithe a thairgeann sé i gCarraig Feabhail do pháistí an-óga faoi mhíchumas foghlama. Gan amhras, bhí neamhfhóinteacht an áitribh chun a chríche ar cheann de na cúiseanna a spreag Barnardo’s aithbhreithniú a dhéanamh, ach ba léir ó ráiteas coimisiúnaithe Bhord an Oirthir i 1998 ar sheirbhísí faoisimh do pháistí faoi mhíchumas foghlama go raibh rún ag an bhord scéimeanna bunaithe ar theaghlaigh a leathnú ar fud a cheantair agus iad a dhíriú ar pháistí óga. Ba é freagra Barnardo’s go raibh rún aige a aird a bhogadh ó sholáthar sainseirbhíse don ghrúpa seo páistí agus an iomad seirbhís uilíoch eile a fhorbairt do pháistí uilig, seirbhísí a bhéas á ndíriú agus á soláthar i gcomhphobail áitiúla.
Tá seo ag cur le polasaí na Roinne gur chóir do scéimeanna faoisimh a bheith samhlaíoch, freagrach, solúbtha, ionrochtain go háitiúil agus oiriúnaithe le riar ar riachtanais cúramóirí.
Cúis aiféala é nuair a tharraingtear siar seirbhís ar bith, agus tuigim imní tuismitheoirí faoi dhruidim ar feitheamh Charraig Feabhail. Ní hionann sin agus a rá, áfach, go bhfágfar na páistí atá ag baint leasa as na seirbhísí reatha agus a dtuismitheoirí gan a athrach de sholáthar. Aonad trí leaba é Carraig Feabhail agus den 21 pháiste atá á úsáid faoi láthair tá seisear le himeacht idir anois agus mí Dheireadh Fómhair ós rud é go bhfuil siad os cionn 10 mbliana d’aois anois. Dearbhaítear domh go bhfuil Bord an Oirthir, ag cur lena ráiteas coimisiúnaithe de 1998, gníomhach ag taiscéaladh socruithe eile don 15 a bhéas fágtha.
Tuigim go bhfuil rún ag an bhord cur lena bhuiséad chúram faoisimh le réimse roghanna eile a chur ar fáil. Do na páistí sin a ba mhó a bhainfeadh tairbhe as an chineál seo cúraim, tá aonaid faoisimh thar oíche eile ann cheana féin. Ar na moltaí forbartha reatha tá méadú ar sheirbhís ionchomórtais in Aonad Faoisimh Pháirc na bhFeá ó cheithre oíche sa tseachtain go seacht n-oíche sa tseachtain. Mar sin féin, dúirt an bord go bhfuil fonn air, agus é ag iarraidh géilleadh do mhianta cúramóirí, réimse níos leithne tacaíochta a sholáthar lena n-áirítear an soláthar a b’fhearr le cúramóirí iad féin, is é sin soláthar ina dtithe féin.
Ar ndóigh, caithfear scéimeanna mar seo a riar go cúramach. Os rud go bhfuil caidreamh duine le duine i gceist, caithfear coimircí a chur in áit, chan amháin le húsáideoirí na seirbhíse a chosaint ach le cosaint, tacaíocht agus oiliúint na foirne agus na n-oibrithe deonacha a chinntiú. Tabharfar aghaidh ar shaincheisteanna den chineál seo mar chuid den phróiseas i bhforbairt na straitéise do chúramóirí atá ar siúl faoi láthair.
Deirtear liom go bhfuil súil ag an bhord, arís ag géilleadh do mhianta cúramóirí, soláthar faoisimh fóillíochta agus saoire a mhéadú, rud a rachas chomh mór chun sochair do pháistí agus a rachas sé chun sochair do chúramóirí.
Ó thaobh airgid de, ó rinneadh Aire díom d’éirigh liom cuid maoinithe bhreise a bhaint amach do sheirbhísí mhíchumas foghlama. Soláthraíonn an Clár do Rialtas do fhoirne comhphobail feabhsaithe a éascóidh daoine a athshocrú ón áit ina bhfuil siad go dtí an cúram sa chomphobal. Níl mé ag maíomh gur leor sin agus leanfaidh mé ar aghaidh ag déanamh tairisceana ar acmhainní breise agus cuirfidh mé ar fáil a dtig liom le cuidiú le boird agus iontaobhais riar ar na tosaíochtaí seirbhíse.
Respite care is an essential service for carers if they are to continue undertaking their caring roles. The Carraigfoyle unit is operated by Barnardo’s and not by the health and social services. The decision about closure is for Barnardo’s to make. Therefore, some of the questions relate specifically to that organisation, but I will address some of the points that Members have raised during the debate.
Barnardo’s has, after some 20 years of devoted service, reviewed the appropriateness of the form of residential respite services that it offers at Carraigfoyle for young children with learning disabilities. Although the inadequacy of the premises for that purpose was doubtless a contributing factor in prompting Barnardo’s review, the Eastern Board’s 1998 commissioning statement on respite services for children with learning disabilities signalled the board’s intention to extend family-based schemes across its area and to target these at younger children.
The question raised about the value of the site is a matter for Barnardo’s. But, as I have said in relation to the inadequacy of the present premises, in addition to the revenue costs there would have been significant capital costs in bringing Carraigfoyle up to proper standards.
Barnardo’s did not approach the health and social services for additional funding. Indeed, the Eastern Board has earmarked an additional £275,000 to expand respite services in its area. Therefore, the Board has made it very clear that it is willing to incur extra expenditure on respite services in its area.
However, I referred to the Eastern Board’s commissioning statement on respite services for children with learning disabilities. In response to that statement, Barnardo’s indicated its intention to move its focus from the provision of a specialist service for this group of children to developing many other universal services for children, targeted and delivered in a local community context. That would be in keeping with departmental policy that respite schemes should be imaginative, responsive, flexible, locally accessible and tailored to meet the needs of carers.
The withdrawal of any service is to be regretted, and I can understand parents’ concerns about the pending closure of Carraigfoyle. I agree with the points made by many Members about the value of the services that have been provided by Barnardo’s at Carraigfoyle over the years. However, I do not agree with suggestions that the children and parents currently benefiting from Carraigfoyle’s services will be left without alternative provision. I have been assured, by the boards and by Barnardo’s — and I know that this will have been indicated in some of the briefings to Members — that they do not intend to leave people without alternative provision.
Carraigfoyle is a three-bed facility, and of the 21 children currently using it, six are due to leave between now and October as they are over 10 years of age. I have been assured that the Eastern Board is actively exploring alternative arrangements for the remaining 15 children, in keeping with its 1998 commissioning statement. I understand that it intends to increase its respite care budget, as I have said, to provide a range of alternative options. For those children who would benefit most from this type of care, there are already other overnight respite facilities.
Current development proposals include the build-up of a comparable service at Beechfield respite unit from four nights per week to seven nights per week. However, I have been told that the board is anxious to provide a more diverse range of support including — and Members have referred to this — the preferred provision in the service users’ own homes.
Such schemes do need careful management. Given the one-to-one relationships that they entail, safeguards must be put in place not only for the protection of service users, but for the protection, support and training of staff and volunteers to ensure the highest possible standards for this service. Such issues will be addressed as part of the process of developing the strategy for carers which is currently under way.
With regard to what will happen to children using the day therapy services when these are withdrawn, the Eastern Board is looking at alternative provision. The paramedic input is funded by the Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust. It is hoped that the trust will be able to find a suitable local arrangement to accommodate the needs of children who avail of these services at Carraigfoyle. I am informed that the board wishes to increase leisure and holiday respite provision, which is as much to the benefit of the children as the carers. There is also a wish to ensure that alternatives are provided which will be acceptable to those who wish to see those services.
On the wider question of funding, I have, since becoming Minister, managed to secure some additional funding for learning disability services, and the Programme for Government provides for enhanced community teams with regard to learning disability generally, which will facilitate the resettlement of patients.
I do not pretend that this is enough, but I will continue to bid for additional resources and provide whatever I can to help boards and trusts meet the service priorities. I am absolutely assured that the boards, the trusts and the voluntary agencies caring for this particularly vulnerable group of children are planning their services with the needs of both the children and their families in mind.
Adjourned at 5.57 pm.